Djoker wrote:Duncan with five 1st place votes in 1998 is the biggest shock of the project thus far. I wish someone would respond to my last post in that thread and actual provide some solid reasoning if there is any because I'm genuinely interested.
A bigger shock than Hakeem easily winning in 86?
At least Hakeem had an amazing PS run leading his team to the Finals. Duncan was average in the PS and took his team nowhere.
By the way, I did point out earlier that I find the 1986 result ridiculous so yea...
One_and_Done wrote:You mean the reasons that require me to care about the same advanced stats you do? There's your answer right there.
Ok so what do you care about? Which metrics have Duncan as the best player in 1998?
I don't base my assessments of guys on metrics. Like, there's no real harm looking at them and using them as a data point, but you have to use some common sense too. There's too many times metrics are clearly wrong.
I look at my holistic analysis of Duncan as a player over his prime. A number of factors go into that, but all of them are about his ability to impact winning. Prime Duncan proved he was among the best floor and ceiling raisers ever. One example of that is when you look at the trash teams he carried in 01-03.
So my next question is 'how much worse was Duncan in 98?' To these eyes, the answer is 'a little, but not much'. Alot if that was due to him being a rookie, which is understandable, but the improvement of the Spurs seems to have been mostly driven by him.
So that's my starting point; that he's arguably the best player. The team didn't win, but given the quality of the support cast I'd say they exceeded or met expectations. Ok, so how did Duncan perform? Looks like he performed about as you could expect/hope. Ok, so the only real reason not to rank him 1st is if I think someone was better, or if I was only focussed on rings without context. I don't think Jordan was better, and I don't think Jordan does as well in Duncan's situation.
To me, Duncan looked to be the best player with the most impact. If a stat you like disagrees, I don't really care because I don't put much weight in advanced stats.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
You all know that Duncan is my favourite player of all-time, but I don't find pushing him at #1 in 1998 reasonable at all. Duncan definitely wasn't the best RS player as a rookie and he didn't do that much in the playoffs. I'd say the Spurs should have done a little better against the Jazz and Duncan played fine throughout the series (Robinson underperformed as usual against Utah), but he played fine for an all-nba level player - not for a POY contender.
One_and_Done wrote:So my next question is 'how much worse was Duncan in 98?' To these eyes, the answer is 'a little, but not much'. Alot if that was due to him being a rookie, which is understandable, but the improvement of the Spurs seems to have been mostly driven by him.
My eyes see something completely different. Peak Duncan was entire tiers ahead of rookie version as a playmaker and passer. Young Duncan struggled with defensive pressure outside of simple kickouts and was more turnover prone, despite having significantly lesser usage.
Rookie Duncan was already elite defender, but he was still quite far away from the level he reached in the early 2000s.
The only thing that was reasonably close was his scoring ability, he was already quite refined in that regard. Scoring ability isn't the most important aspect of Duncan's game though.
I'd say the difference between 1998 Duncan and 2001-03 Duncan is quite significant.
I disagree. I'm also comparing rookie Duncan to 99 Duncan, not 03 Duncan. We can all agree 02 or 03 Duncan was peak Duncan, but 99 Duncan would have been #1 for me in 98 too, so I'm really asking how much better he really got in 99.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
One_and_Done wrote:I disagree. I'm also comparing rookie Duncan to 99 Duncan, not 03 Duncan. We can all agree 02 or 03 Duncan was peak Duncan, but 99 Duncan would have been #1 for me in 98 too, so I'm really asking how much better he really got in 99.
You compared rookie Duncan to how he carried his team in 2001-03 period, you didn't say anything about 1999 in your previous post.
I think he became better quite significantly even in 1999, but 1998 also has stronger competition for the top - Jordan wasn't there anymore, Shaq and Malone had better season in 1998.
When you take a look at how Duncan performed against the Jazz in 1998, you can see quite clearly that he wasn't consistent in the series like prime Duncan would be.
Djoker wrote:Duncan with five 1st place votes in 1998 is the biggest shock of the project thus far. I wish someone would respond to my last post in that thread and actual provide some solid reasoning if there is any because I'm genuinely interested.
A bigger shock than Hakeem easily winning in 86?
At least Hakeem had an amazing PS run leading his team to the Finals. Duncan was average in the PS and took his team nowhere. ?
"Took his team nowhere"
Spoiler:
I can think of multiple reasons that the Spurs went from a -13.8 net rating against the Jazz in 1996 to a -0.2 net rating against the Jazz in 1998 (yes, the latter is skewed by a blowout win for the Spurs, but including the wins helps the 1996 team here). For example, Robinson played an extra four minutes per game; we do not have postseason plus/minus data for the 1996 series, so perhaps Robinson was outscoring the Jazz by 3.4 per minute and would have matched the 1998 team simply by playing more. Or alternatively, perhaps 1998 Robinson was actually a much better postseason player than 1996 Robinson. Not how it looked to my eye, but if someone wants to argue that, they should definitely do so. Maybe the Jazz were substantially worse. Again, not my assessment, but would love to see that argument made. Maybe the Spurs’ bench was significantly better in 1998. Maybe Jaren Jackson was secretly an all-NBA wing. Maybe Tim Duncan just fulfilled a structurally useful role, and being replaced with someone like Vin Baker still would have let the team keep the series close.
However, for some reason, no one has really cared to argue any of that, which leaves us with the default conclusion that the primary change in the two results — and the 15-2 dominant title run next year — was the specific presence of Tim Duncan.
I've got Duncan as better than Shaq or Jordan against Utah. If that is "average" so be it.
70sfan wrote:My eyes see something completely different. Peak Duncan was entire tiers ahead of rookie version as a playmaker and passer. Young Duncan struggled with defensive pressure outside of simple kickouts and was more turnover prone, despite having significantly lesser usage.
Rookie Duncan was already elite defender, but he was still quite far away from the level he reached in the early 2000s.
Possible 99 is coloring 98 too much for me, but on a casualish rewatch of the finals warts and all Duncan seemed to be creating plenty. I think 2-3 times a game he'd take out 3 defenders (I know it happened twice in the 40-possesions i tracked his and robinson's defense). I don't think need a post-big needs to be a very good passer to create in bunches for the 90s anyway. Unless defenses were treating him meaningfully different in 1998 I'd be surprised if he wasn't a top 10 creator.
Duncan vs Drob also looks like a debate defensively from the 99 series. How much better did Duncan get there from 98?
Maybe I should have given Malone stronger consideration, but I was pretty thoroughly unimpressed with Jordan's offense in the 1998 finals for OPOY standards and while Shaq is theoretically the best his team does the worst vs the Jazz and then we see 99 Duncan dominate him offensively. Haven't watched the 98 WCF so maybe something else was up, but I have little reason to doubt Shaq's defense being a primary culprit for the sweep.
I think considering the competition, Duncan getting consideration is fine. 99 Duncan looked much better than Jordan or Malone to me at any rate.
Uh I see the Hakeem fans showed up for this project. The 93 year at least it’s during his super peak, but I can’t see him as top guy in 86, and he even got 4 1st place votes in 97.
Djoker wrote:Duncan with five 1st place votes in 1998 is the biggest shock of the project thus far. I wish someone would respond to my last post in that thread and actual provide some solid reasoning if there is any because I'm genuinely interested.
Hmm, a ton of top 5 votes changed (including giving guys like Mutombo or Iverson some love). Penbeast actually voting in Artest and Billups, crazy.
Anyway, pretty late but I can participate. Mostly been watching some Wemby all year.
Djoker wrote:Duncan with five 1st place votes in 1998 is the biggest shock of the project thus far. I wish someone would respond to my last post in that thread and actual provide some solid reasoning if there is any because I'm genuinely interested.
Hmm, a ton of top 5 votes changed (including giving guys like Mutombo or Iverson some love). Penbeast actually voting in Artest and Billups, crazy.
Anyway, pretty late but I can participate. Mostly been watching some Wemby all year.
1993 Thread EDIT: The standard to request late admittance is at least seven threads of involved participation in discussion of that year pre-tally, by which I mean offering thoughts on the players and their season and engaging with the thoughts of others on average at least twice per thread before I close voting (because otherwise someone could just make a quick series of post-hoc contributions; the intent here is to show real commitment to the project).
Dr Positivity wrote:Uh I see the Hakeem fans showed up for this project. The 93 year at least it’s during his super peak, but I can’t see him as top guy in 86, and he even got 4 1st place votes in 97.
i'm one of the biggest hakeem fans here and i can't get to him being #1 in 1986. like i get that he steamrolled showtime and led a great defense in the playoffs, but i have magic over hakeem prime for prime and this is magic one year from his peak and hakeem in his 2nd year and it's not like magic disappointed. this was the year before all his stats took a big jump in 1987, but his regular season numbers are still very good and then his playoff numbers shoot up across the board, leading the playoffs in WS48 and with a 9.3 BPM. and in the WCF, he has the second most assists in a series for his career and is generally great.
and bird. i'm lower on him like a lot of people here, but he leads one of the greatest teams ever, leads the league in PER/WS48/BPM, something only i think 9 people have done (he's one of like 5 to do it more than once), then actually increases his WS48 and BPM in the playoffs, with falling off in the playoffs usually the big knock on him. in the WCF, his team slaughters a +8.7 team with bird having 55/50/95 splits and almost a triple double average. then he gets even closer to a triple double in the finals with "meh" but not bad shooting splits. this just seems like a somewhat slam dunk #1 season as these things tend to go.
and '97 feels like an even harder case, even if malone sucked in the playoffs compared to the regular season and jordan couldn't shoot straight against miami. hakeem again stepped it up in the playoffs with an amazing 59% FG and overall great numbers while beating a very good sonics team and was the best player in the WCF, but it just didn't feel like he had the ability to truly take over any more like you would think from #1. without the outlier 59% shooting, he's possibly down around 20 ppg in the playoffs (i get that the shooting still counts because it happened, but i'm just saying he couldn't up volume like before) and without his earlier dominant defense.
but i didn't participate so i guess i can't complain.
Dr Positivity wrote:Uh I see the Hakeem fans showed up for this project. The 93 year at least it’s during his super peak, but I can’t see him as top guy in 86, and he even got 4 1st place votes in 97.
i'm one of the biggest hakeem fans here and i can't get to him being #1 in 1986. like i get that he steamrolled showtime and led a great defense in the playoffs, but i have magic over hakeem prime for prime and this is magic one year from his peak and hakeem in his 2nd year and it's not like magic disappointed. this was the year before all his stats took a big jump in 1987, but his regular season numbers are still very good and then his playoff numbers shoot up across the board, leading the playoffs in WS48 and with a 9.3 BPM.
and bird. [b]i'm lower on him like a lot of people here, but he leads one of the greatest teams ever, leads the league in PER/WS48/BPM, something only i think 9 people have done (he's one of like 5 to do it more than once), then actually increases his WS48 and BPM in the playoffs, with falling off in the playoffs usually the big knock on him. in the WCF, his team slaughters a +8.7 team with bird having 55/50/95 splits and almost a triple double average. then he gets even closer to a triple double in the finals with "meh" but not bad shooting splits. this just seems like a somewhat slam dunk #1 season as these things tend to go.[/b] and in the WCF, he has the second most assists in a series for his career and is generally great.
Well, for better or worse, slashlines, all-in-ones, advanced stats, and to a degree even on/off/RAPM don't seem as important to this voting bloc as the last one, or even the top 100/peaks project voters. Pretty sure if you ran that "ranking to advanced stat rank" correlation thing you did for the top 100 with POY threads it would end up being a lot weaker. You can find that epistimology being debated here: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=114807907#p114807907 and here: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=115575331#p115575331
The counter here is...isolated clips of creation people claim happened at a vaguely high frequency (ex: Ben taylor) without any real attempt at defining what they're tracking or a means of peer-review.
Fwiw, half a dozen hakeem voters cited the multi-year tracking above so it doesn't seem crazy to say that ended up being the biggest factor in Olajuwon's signature POY upset.
If Bird isn't outcreating or taking out significantly more defenders than Hakeem, does it really matter if he's averaging a near triple double?
1986 Lakers vs. Spurs: +31.4 NRtg, 122.7 ORtg 1986 Lakers vs. Mavs: +5.1 NRtg, 119.7 ORtg 1986 Lakers vs. Rockets: -3.6 NRtg, 107.4 ORtg
1987 Lakers vs. Nuggets: +25.2 NRtg, 125.1 ORtg 1987 Lakers vs. Warriors: +10.5 NRtg, 121.7 ORtg 1987 Lakers vs. Sonics: +11.4 NRtg, 117.2 ORtg 1987 Lakers vs. Celtics: +4.3 NRtg, 118.4 ORtg
NOBODY could stop that Lakers offense—the 1985 Celtics slowed them a little, but the Rockets did something pretty extraordinary in 1986 that really doesn’t get celebrated enough. 1990 Jordan was of course amazing, and played great in the playoffs (though the 1990 Pistons aren’t in the same tier as this Lakers team—1990 pistons had some of the best health ever and were still a tier below that Lakers’ juggernaut), but 82 games, 39 mpg of a player basically at his peak producing that SRS (and then playinand seems to be swept away while what 1986 Hakeem did doesn’t seem to get the fanfare it should. ...
Round 1: Chicago Bulls (-3.1), won 3-0, by +13.7 points per game (+10.6 SRS eq) Round 2: Atlanta Hawks (+3.7), won 4-1, by +9.6 points per game (+13.3 SRS eq) Round 3: Milwaukee Bucks (+6.7), won 4-0, by +15.0 points per game (+21.7 SRS eq) Round 4: Houston Rockets (+7.4), won 4-2, by +6.2 points per game (+13.6 SRS eq)
Offensive / Defensive Ratings from Opposition Regular Season Average:
Chicago Bulls: +9.0 / -0.3 Atlanta Hawks: +8.6 / -3.5 Milwaukee Bucks: +14.2 / -9.3 Houston Rockets: +4.3 / -4.6
...The Rockets perform like a juggernaut through the first 3 rounds and a solid title contender vs the Celtics(a series where Sampson reverted back to his regular-season self and missed most of a game)
The Rockets were something like a -10 defense vs the Lakers and a -6 defense vs the Celtics relative to their other playoff performances. That's two all-time teams powered by all-time offenses being thwarted by a defense where Hakeem is far and away the best rim-protector in terms of both usage and efficacy ontop of also being the most dynamic defender in the league
They also perform, for the playoffs, better statistically than teams like the 2000 Lakers facing much better competition despite looking average (or worse by net) without Hakeem.
It also doesn't really help that all the tracking so far finds Bird's defense to be unimpressive in 86 when the defense is what separated the 86 Celtics from the 85 and 87 Celtics, not the offense.
Ultimately, with Hakeem being seen as a similar playmaker to Bird even pre-rudy T, it's pretty hard to argue Hakeem didn't outplay Bird in the finals as the Rockets forced a 6 game series in spite of Sampson's worst efforts. And if you outplay peak Bird right after outplaying peak Magic...that makes for a pretty compelling POY case.
Ironically, raw impact helped Bird a bit with some WOWY stuff from LA bird convincing people to move Bird higher allowing him to avoid the embarrassment of finishing third below Magic in his signature year (instead it was a tie). But vs Hakeem he was pretty far behind. You would have needed 5 additional Bird 1 Hakeem 3 votes for Bird to win in addition to what was already the highest voting turnout of the project (20).
Pretty funny that for a player whose most often defended with "watch him play", watching him play made a bunch of people agree he wasn't that good.
and '97 feels like an even harder case, even if malone sucked in the playoffs compared to the regular season and jordan couldn't shoot straight against miami. hakeem again stepped it up in the playoffs with an amazing 59% FG and overall great numbers while beating a very good sonics team and was the best player in the WCF, but it just didn't feel like he had the ability to truly take over any more like you would think from #1. without the outlier 59% shooting, he's possibly down around 20 ppg in the playoffs (i get that the shooting still counts because it happened, but i'm just saying he couldn't up volume like before) and without his earlier dominant defense.
but i didn't participate so i guess i can't complain.
During Hakeem’s first 40 possessions, I gave him, 27 possessions as a primary or co-primary rim-protector of which he was deemed effective in 13 and ineffective in 7. Hakeem also was given 4 possessions as a primary or co–primary perimeter defender, of which he was deemed effective in 3 and ineffective in 1. Additionally Hakeem was given 4 Irrational Avoidances. This means per Possession, Hakeem averaged, 0.675 PPs, 0.325 EPPs, 0.175 IPPs, 0.1 PPDs, 0.075 EPPDs, 0.025 IPPDs, and 0.1 IAs.
For a comparative frame, over 22 Possessions in the final game of the 94 ECSF vs Chicago, Ewing had 13 PPs and 3 IAs giving him, per possession, .59 PPs and 1.4 IAs. Perimeter usage and Efficacy, along with Paint efficacy were not tracked.
As this is the first tracking I’ve done for most of this, the comparative utility of what is being counted is currently limited. That said, in comparison to the other four leaders in tracked rim-load (94 Pippen, 88 Oakley, 94 Ewing, 86 Mchale), Hakeem stands out in various ways.
Firstly, Hakeem seemed to see the least help from teammates while dealing with a tower in Ostertag at and around the basket and being tested by Stockton on the perimeter a fair bit. The Rockets spent many possessions just leaving the area under the basket empty, presumably on the assumption that if something went wrong Hakeem could move quickly enough to cover. While I didn’t count secondary usage, I imagine such counting would see Hakeem be credited in nearly all the possessions he wasn’t the primary. In general I thought he was more effective per-possession than Ewing or Pippen or Oakley, and similarly effective as Mchale on a higher rate of usage (I’ll need to count how many possessions from the 86 tracking Mchale played but his final tally in PPs was 16 and he certainly didn’t miss 11 of the possessions tracked). Obviously PIppen was the more active perimeter player though I’d give Hakeem the edge over the rest(maybe want to double check Mchale though).
I was, maybe unsurprisingly, significantly more impressed with 86 Olajuwon. His usage was lower thanks to Sampson but when Sampson went out he was used about as much in the paint, and I’d guess was used significantly more on the perimeter while being significantly more effective in both areas.
I didn’t do team-wide tracking, but I’d ballpark Hakeem as the Rocket’s third most active perimeter defender here along with being an obvious runaway lead in terms of paint-protection. I’d also say he handled both pretty well which, considering he was largely operating by himself, while dealing with a very annoying assignment, is pretty impressive. If representative, I’d probably project this iteration of Hakeem as a solidly top 3 defender though not necessarily the best(Might do Mutombo next).
Taking a broader look, I think my focus on basket proximity when assessing load may disadvantage great ground-coverers like Olajuwon. Players like Hakeem(and maybe even guys like Pippen) can still be operating as the last-line of defense without being at the basket. Not sure how to address this.
I still ended up voting Jordan first because of impact stuff, but if I just had to go by eye, Hakeem looked arguably better on both ends vs Utah when i rewatched the finals and wcf
Larry Bird’s best aspect bar none, is scoring, and Hakeem is a better scorer. That alone ends the debate. Longevity is clearly Hakeem. Defense is clearly Hakeem. Bird clearly has playmaking but for what it’s worth, he wasn’t the one creating and drawing up advantages and making extreme level reads for high quality buckets. He was the main connector on the team, arguably not even the main creator on the team. Meanwhile, Hakeem is creating at volumes similar to Bird in a situation that’s insanely hard to create a true 4 on 3 advantage due to the lack of spacing between players and their defenders on the court. You’d have a freed up player and the defender’s man just being guarded by the defender being they’re so close together and to make a pass out a blitz (being trapped) in the low post is very hard. A lot of great post players had troubles with that. Hakeem was able to hit his players when available, maybe not to the capitalization level of a Duncan or Shaq, but it was eerily similar to Kareem. Again, imagine you’re playing in a horrible offensive setting that when you get doubled, it’s very hard to find or slip a pass through to someone via the spacing all the time, so you’d become more prone to just shooting it. Vs having the privilege in playing within a system that has some shooters, stars (Penny, Kobe, Parker & Oscar), capable guards, off ball players, and an all time coach to guide you through your progressions as a center. Meaningful tidbits of information to add with Hakeem, instead of just running around calling him a black hole (not saying anyone particular did here, but it’s a common thought). Hence why we see Hakeem creating all the damn time once he got his coach and capable players around him. It’s why I cut Drob some slack because his situation offensively isn’t too sound (Vinny moves me as a PnR and driver typa player) and Persons was the only good shooter on the team for long. But yea, context matters for playmaking. The Rockets didn’t bother abusing illegal defense back in the 80’s for whatever reason. Bad coaching. Hakeem led top 4 defenses every year (including a #2 and #1) but didn’t have the offensive team around him. Even when Hakeem becomes a boulder of a force offensively in the playoffs (and offensive riser btw) they lose, ie. 87 & 88. I think Bird just has this mythological view on his playmaking and overall game, that, when taken to the film room, gets debunked. Hakeem imo deserved 86.
I mean sure but if the debate just trickles down to defense vs offense without diving into specifics it’s boring and not productive. Bird is only a better playmaker as explained.
On this concept of creation, beyond some issues I’ve raised a lot (issues of subjectivity and drawing conclusions from really tiny samples), I think tallying up “creations” in a game is largely just a measure of the heliocentricity of the offensive system. Some offensive systems will focus on one player more than other systems, which will naturally make the “creation” in that offense come from one player more than it does in other systems. Systems that naturally distribute things more broadly aren’t inherently better or worse—with heliocentric systems having the advantage of focusing things on the best player, but more balanced systems having the advantage of getting everyone involved and leveraging more skills of the entire team. Both can be and have been very successful.
Given that differences in offensive system will naturally have a huge effect on the raw tallies of “creations” for star players, I think a better way to think about this conceptually would be to think about how much “creation” someone is doing relative to what you’d expect in the context of the offensive system they play in. That’s basically the marginal creation value that the player is providing. IMO, a guy in a more egalitarian offensive system can actually have less “creation” than a guy in a more heliocentric offensive system but yet be more valuable as a “creator” because he’s creating a lot more than what you’d expect given the system while the other guy isn’t.
And I think that’s something that matters a lot when it comes to Larry Bird. A commonly-held view on Bird is that he was really great at making quick reads within the flow of a pretty egalitarian offense. If his quick decision-making and passing ability was creating much more than you’d expect from someone in the context he was in, then it may well be more valuable to the team than the “creation” of someone in an offense much more centered around them who might tally higher “creation” totals.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
I haven't been voting in this, but count me as another Bird supporter in this debate.
I'm not sure on what the notion of Hakeem>Bird as a scorer in 86 is based. In the regular season, Bird scored on higher volume(PER 100) and higher efficiency while playing more games:
Bird - 32.2 PER 100 on 58% TS in 82 games Hakeem - 30.0 PER 100 on 56% TS in 68 games
And in the postseason, Hakeem rises to score on higher volume, but on significantly lower efficiency(nearly five percentage points lower) than Bird:
29.5 PER 100 on 61.5% TS 34.0 PER 100 on 56.6% TS
And that higher efficiency is accomplished while
a)shooting 41.1% 3P on 3.1 attempts per game while Hakeem was scoring all of his points inside and b)playing teams with higher defensive ratings in the second round and conference finals:
ATL(6th, -1.6) MIL(2nd, -4.5)
vs
DEN(9th, -1.3 rDRtg) LAL(7th, -1.4 rDRtg)
Bird putting up 25.3ppg on 67.1% TS(while shooting 50% from 3P on 4.5 attempts per game) against a -4.5 defense in the conference finals seems noteworthy to me.
--- As for creation/playmaking - I appreciate the effort that is put into tracking this stuff, but my instinct is that not all creation is the same. When you're talking about a center for whom the nature of his creation is using his gravity to draw the defense inward and then passing the ball back out, and a wing who has to move around with the ball, dribble, and pass outside-in(or side-to-side) to create, it strikes me as comparing apples to oranges. It's like two different skillsets entirely.
If we are going to compare the apples to the oranges though - while I fully understand that there's more to creation and playmaking than assists, it strikes me as wrong to simply ignore the chasm of their a:t ratios. Bird recorded a >2:1 ratio in the RS and a >3:1 ratio in the PO, while Hakeem turned the ball over more than he assisted in both RS and PO:
Bird RS: 8.5:4.1, PO: 9.4:3.0 Hakeem RS: 2.0:2.9, PO: 2.0:2.2 --- This is also a unique comparison in that these guys went head-to-head in the Finals. These are their box numbers in that series:
24.0/9.7/9.5a(on 2.7 to)/2.5s on 57.8% TS 24.7/11.8/1.8(on 2.7 to)/2.3s/3.2b on 52.6% TS
Does it not matter that when going to head to head, Bird not only won but scored on similar volume on 5% higher efficiency while recording a 3.5:1 a:t ratio, nearly averaging a triple double, and being in the same ballpark on the boards despite being three inches shorter and playing next to good rebounders in McHale and Parish? That he was the focal point of what is held by most as one of the greatest teams ever that, in their four wins in the Finals, had an average MOV of 13.5ppg over Hakeem's team?
I do wish we had RAPMs or on/offs for this season, it would be very interesting to see.
I fully understand the arguments in favor of Hakeem - that he's the superior defender, that what he accomplished is more impressive because he did it with less, etc - I just don't agree that they put him over Bird in 86. I don't think anyone's changing their minds at this point, though, and I am unsurprised at the result given this forum seems to be, relative to the general basketball-following population, super-duper high on guys like Hakeem and Duncan and Garnett and relatively lukewarm on guys like Bird and Shaq and even Magic.
