Retro POY '95-96 (Voting Complete)

[bastillon]

so Hakeem led a poor supporting cast to 50W while posting pretty much the same RS from the year before and then his team was swept because there were like 3 NBA level players on his team (that were playing through injuries anyway)... that's out-of-top5 player ?

I think nobody would ever dare to say Payton/Penny/Pippen > Hakeem in '96. seriously, Hakeem was clearly on another level. I can't really imagine people picking Robinson over Hakeem at the time... with that WCF from the year before in mind, damn hard statement to make. it's like (hypothetically) Gasol embarrassed Dwight last year and this year people are picking Dwight when their stats didn't change at all from last year.

you have to focus more on actual ability as a player, because overall stats are so dependant upon your teammates. Hakeem at this point is a two-way dominant big without legit flaws in any category. post scoring, midrange scoring, rebounding, help/team defense, man defense, passing out of double teams, leadership, clutch scoring... he had it all. you simply have to understand how rare historically it is to combine all of those elements at the same time.

would you really pick someone who severely regresses in the playoffs and whose style isn't suited to playoff basketball in general (Rob) ? would you really pick someone whose natural (in)capabilities don't allow him to be a defensive anchor because of his poor shotblocking ? (Malone)

if a player is so dominant as Hakeem was in 93-95, there needs to be a good reason to exclude him out of POY contention in '96. nothing like that happened. his team performed significantly worse and was swept in the playoffs... but you can't win without being healthy. individually Hakeem played worse statistically... but that wasn't the case on the court, just the circumstances vastly different (swarming defense ignoring his teammates, a lot of trouble getting him the ball, offense out of sync etc).

I can understand your reasoning though - stats are showing a lot after all.

[sp6r=underrated]

Great post.

Hakeem and KG are the only two big men in NBA history who have ever been "swarmed". All other big men face single coverage.

[Doctor MJ]

so Hakeem led a poor supporting cast to 50W while posting pretty much the same RS from the year before and then his team was swept because there were like 3 NBA level players on his team (that were playing through injuries anyway)... that's out-of-top5 player ?

I think nobody would ever dare to say Payton/Penny/Pippen > Hakeem in '96. seriously, Hakeem was clearly on another level. I can't really imagine people picking Robinson over Hakeem at the time... with that WCF from the year before in mind, damn hard statement to make. it's like (hypothetically) Gasol embarrassed Dwight last year and this year people are picking Dwight when their stats didn't change at all from last year.

you have to focus more on actual ability as a player, because overall stats are so dependant upon your teammates. Hakeem at this point is a two-way dominant big without legit flaws in any category. post scoring, midrange scoring, rebounding, help/team defense, man defense, passing out of double teams, leadership, clutch scoring... he had it all. you simply have to understand how rare historically it is to combine all of those elements at the same time.

would you really pick someone who severely regresses in the playoffs and whose style isn't suited to playoff basketball in general (Rob) ? would you really pick someone whose natural (in)capabilities don't allow him to be a defensive anchor because of his poor shotblocking ? (Malone)

if a player is so dominant as Hakeem was in 93-95, there needs to be a good reason to exclude him out of POY contention in '96. nothing like that happened. his team performed significantly worse and was swept in the playoffs... but you can't win without being healthy. individually Hakeem played worse statistically... but that wasn't the case on the court, just the circumstances vastly different (swarming defense ignoring his teammates, a lot of trouble getting him the ball, offense out of sync etc).

I can understand your reasoning though - stats are showing a lot after all.

So first off, I think you can make a strong case for Hakeem being top 5.

To me the crux of where you're going though is 1) We saw what Hakeem really was in the '95 playoffs, 2) there's no indication that he's a totally different player this year, 3) so how can you not rate him extremely highly? Whereas how I tend to see Hakeem as a guy who won titles because he played significantly better than his normal peak in two playoffs, and then this year, he doesn't repeat that trend. Rating a guy highly because he does well in the playoffs I totally get, but rating a guy highly because he did well in playoffs other than this one (which he didn't do well) really seems to me like not evaluating what a guy actually accomplished on a year-by-year basis.

[Silver Bullet]

PS. DRTG is one of the worst stats in my opinion to try and judge a teams defensive prowess by -

Why?

Well
1. Totally ignores steals and blocks

2. It ignores offensive rebounding or rather the inverse, the failure to grab a defensive rebound. So in terms of defensive rating, take a look at these three hypothetical situations:
- It's the Suns vs Lakers, the Suns take one shot grab the offensive rebound, take another shot (miss) grab the offensive rebound, take a third shot (miss) and the Lakers get the rebound.
- The Suns turn the ball over, without getting a shot off.
- The Suns take one shot, miss the shot and the Lakers grab the defensive rebound.

Defensive rating treats each of these three situation as exactly the same.

3. How about this situation -
- Steve Nash goes up for a shot, gets his shot blocked, ball goes to Kobe who goes up for the shot, gets it blocked by Amare.
According to defensive rating, such a play doesn't exist - a possession can only come to an end if you get fouled, take a field goal attempt or turn it over -
get your shot blocked or get it stolen and it's as if the play never happened.

4. Penalizes teams for controlling the tempo. Say you're playing the Suns and you hold them to only 50 shots instead of 70 - because they get fewer shots they shoot a higher percentage than normal but still end up getting blown out. Defensive rating will tell you, you did a horrible defensive job.

5. Doesn't compare well across eras (maybe, I haven't ever delved deeply into this)

6. Most importantly, doesn't hold up empirically.
6 of the top 20 defensive teams of all time are from the same year (73-74).

17 of the top 20 teams of all time, 26 of the top 30, 32 of the top 40 are from the same decade (70's).

Apply any sort of a test -
08 Celtics or 03 Nets ?
01 Raptors or 95 Knicks ?

Anyone wanna guess without looking where the 72 win Bulls rank all time defensively when you look at defensive rating ???

[ElGee]

so Hakeem led a poor supporting cast to 50W while posting pretty much the same RS from the year before and then his team was swept because there were like 3 NBA level players on his team (that were playing through injuries anyway)... that's out-of-top5 player ?

I think nobody would ever dare to say Payton/Penny/Pippen > Hakeem in '96. seriously, Hakeem was clearly on another level. I can't really imagine people picking Robinson over Hakeem at the time... with that WCF from the year before in mind, damn hard statement to make. it's like (hypothetically) Gasol embarrassed Dwight last year and this year people are picking Dwight when their stats didn't change at all from last year.

you have to focus more on actual ability as a player, because overall stats are so dependant upon your teammates. Hakeem at this point is a two-way dominant big without legit flaws in any category. post scoring, midrange scoring, rebounding, help/team defense, man defense, passing out of double teams, leadership, clutch scoring... he had it all. you simply have to understand how rare historically it is to combine all of those elements at the same time.

would you really pick someone who severely regresses in the playoffs and whose style isn't suited to playoff basketball in general (Rob) ? would you really pick someone whose natural (in)capabilities don't allow him to be a defensive anchor because of his poor shotblocking ? (Malone)

if a player is so dominant as Hakeem was in 93-95, there needs to be a good reason to exclude him out of POY contention in '96. nothing like that happened. his team performed significantly worse and was swept in the playoffs... but you can't win without being healthy. individually Hakeem played worse statistically... but that wasn't the case on the court, just the circumstances vastly different (swarming defense ignoring his teammates, a lot of trouble getting him the ball, offense out of sync etc).

I can understand your reasoning though - stats are showing a lot after all.

Bastillon, I imagine you probably disagree and won't budge on Hakeem. For the others, I'm not sure how much anyone remembers/is looking into Hakeem, as Robinson in general is a more complicated animal IMO. But this "poor supporting cast to 50W" line is incomplete.

I've re-watched some of 2 Rockets games that year and a highlight reel from a Lakers playoff game, and Hakeem's team (SRS 1.6) had a much improved Robert Horry (who was seen as an emerging star) and Sam Cassell. When Drexler was healthy, he gave Houston 19-7-6 and was a solid player even at 33. Mario Elie (missed 37 games) was certainly better than he was in 1999, although a similar type of player. You slam Chucky Brown, but he and Bryant were decent bench options.

As usual, I'm not trying to downplay Hakeem or anything of the sort. It's just that basketball is a team game and I'm trying to gauge how much Hakeem contributed and my assessment is his defense and offense were slightly declined and he certainly wasn't anything close to what he was during the 1995 playoffs. That said, he was a great player and still elite at 33, and if I thought some of his other contributions were better I'd have him even higher than top 6.

[microfib4thewin]

Great post.

Hakeem and KG are the only two big men in NBA history who have ever been "swarmed". All other big men face single coverage.

More like only KG and Hakeem have always played with scrubs and their teams would be dead last in the D-league without their glorious presence.

[Sedale Threatt]

Great post.

Hakeem and KG are the only two big men in NBA history who have ever been "swarmed". All other big men face single coverage.

More like only KG and Hakeem have always played with scrubs and their teams would be dead last in the D-league without their glorious presence.

Way to show your anti-Hakeem bias, guys.

[ElGee]

PS. DRTG is one of the worst stats in my opinion to try and judge a teams defensive prowess by -

Why?

Well
1. Totally ignores steals and blocks

2. It ignores offensive rebounding or rather the inverse, the failure to grab a defensive rebound. So in terms of defensive rating, take a look at these three hypothetical situations:
- It's the Suns vs Lakers, the Suns take one shot grab the offensive rebound, take another shot (miss) grab the offensive rebound, take a third shot (miss) and the Lakers get the rebound.
- The Suns turn the ball over, without getting a shot off.
- The Suns take one shot, miss the shot and the Lakers grab the defensive rebound.

Defensive rating treats each of these three situation as exactly the same.

3. How about this situation -
- Steve Nash goes up for a shot, gets his shot blocked, ball goes to Kobe who goes up for the shot, gets it blocked by Amare.
According to defensive rating, such a play doesn't exist - a possession can only come to an end if you get fouled, take a field goal attempt or turn it over -
get your shot blocked or get it stolen and it's as if the play never happened.

4. Penalizes teams for controlling the tempo. Say you're playing the Suns and you hold them to only 50 shots instead of 70 - because they get fewer shots they shoot a higher percentage than normal but still end up getting blown out. Defensive rating will tell you, you did a horrible defensive job.

5. Doesn't compare well across eras (maybe, I haven't ever delved deeply into this)

6. Most importantly, doesn't hold up empirically.
6 of the top 20 defensive teams of all time are from the same year (73-74).

17 of the top 20 teams of all time, 26 of the top 30, 32 of the top 40 are from the same decade (70's).

Apply any sort of a test -
08 Celtics or 03 Nets ?
01 Raptors or 95 Knicks ?

Anyone wanna guess without looking where the 72 win Bulls rank all time defensively when you look at defensive rating ???

I believe they are top 10 relative to league average. (I don't know why we wouldn't compare to league average.) But i have no idea how the pre-3-point line teams factor in...

EDIT: I thought they were -6.8 relative to average. They were -5.8. I'm not sure that will crack top 10...I believe top 5 are 04 Spurs, 05 Spurs, 93 Knicks, 94 Knicks and 08 Celtics.

I don't have Oliver's book, so I'm not sure about the exact details of the equation, but it's an estimate of points allowed per 100 possessions. What could be a more accurate measure of how good a defense is than that? It literally answers the question, "how hard is it to score points on that team."

I do know that as far as the possession calculation, steals DO count.

As far as the other scenarios presented, I'll say this. We don't care if there is a block or a deflection or an offensive rebound or 10 of such occurrences or 5 forced timeouts or whatever. A defensive possession is over when you secure the ball again (nearly always ending with a defensive rebound or, sadly, an inbounds pass). If a team scores 2 points on that possession, they scored 2 points on that possession. Your 3 situations are exactly the same for figuring out how efficient my defense was. If Amare is blocked and gets his own rebound, the possession didn't end. If he's blocked and Kobe grabs the board, the possession is over (a successful stop) and is counted (Def Reb for Kobe) in the possession calcucation.

re: #4, it's a possession-by-possession game. It is an accurate measure of how well you stopped them. If you have 20 fewer possessions, you also have 20 fewer possessions to score points. This is exactly why points/possession is more valuable than points per game (which doesn't account for pace).

[Doctor MJ]

Well
1. Totally ignores steals and blocks

2. It ignores offensive rebounding or rather the inverse, the failure to grab a defensive rebound. So in terms of defensive rating, take a look at these three hypothetical situations:
- It's the Suns vs Lakers, the Suns take one shot grab the offensive rebound, take another shot (miss) grab the offensive rebound, take a third shot (miss) and the Lakers get the rebound.
- The Suns turn the ball over, without getting a shot off.
- The Suns take one shot, miss the shot and the Lakers grab the defensive rebound.

Defensive rating treats each of these three situation as exactly the same.

3. How about this situation -
- Steve Nash goes up for a shot, gets his shot blocked, ball goes to Kobe who goes up for the shot, gets it blocked by Amare.
According to defensive rating, such a play doesn't exist - a possession can only come to an end if you get fouled, take a field goal attempt or turn it over -
get your shot blocked or get it stolen and it's as if the play never happened.

4. Penalizes teams for controlling the tempo. Say you're playing the Suns and you hold them to only 50 shots instead of 70 - because they get fewer shots they shoot a higher percentage than normal but still end up getting blown out. Defensive rating will tell you, you did a horrible defensive job.

5. Doesn't compare well across eras (maybe, I haven't ever delved deeply into this)

6. Most importantly, doesn't hold up empirically.
6 of the top 20 defensive teams of all time are from the same year (73-74).

17 of the top 20 teams of all time, 26 of the top 30, 32 of the top 40 are from the same decade (70's).

Apply any sort of a test -
08 Celtics or 03 Nets ?
01 Raptors or 95 Knicks ?

Anyone wanna guess without looking where the 72 win Bulls rank all time defensively when you look at defensive rating ???

Huh. Maybe I'm confused, but here are my responses to those points:

1. Doesn't ignore steals & blocks, just combines them with things considered to be similar. It counts turnovers, and a steal means a turnover. The distinction between a blocked shots and any other missed shot is not clear. The only reason you'd rather be blocking shots than have them be missed is based on the assumption that blocks result in 1) more missed shots in the future, and/or 2) better offensive efficiency. The first point isn't something I see a reason to quibble over since to the extent that effect exists it will will get counted on future possessions.

The second point is a reasonable point to make in terms of the blurred lines between offense and defense.

2. For the scenarios you describe, again there's not a practical difference between them. They are different reasons for success or failure, but they all have the same end effect.

3. You do realize that a blocked shot means that there is a field goal attempt right?

4. I'm not following - if you're doing things that cause them to blow possessions, that will get factored into the formula.

5 & 6. Agree. You can't measure teams across eras simply by looking at their ratings.

So here's what I'll say - when evaluating a team, it is good to look at blocks, etc. However, I'd be real reluctant to dismiss DRtg because it doesn't have that information. DRtg is a proof in the pudding stat. There are many ways to skin a cat, DRtg is a way to tell you that the cat did in fact get skinned. If they do it without blocks, that's fine. If they block a ton of shots and teams are still scoring, that's not fine.

The era issue is a bigger thing and it has everything to do with the blurring of offense and defense. What's particularly impressive about the '96 Bulls though is that they ranked #1 on both ends. So this isn't a team where the defense is great at stops but there's evidence they aren't good at jumpstarting the offense.

[Silver Bullet]

so Hakeem led a poor supporting cast to 50W while posting pretty much the same RS from the year before and then his team was swept because there were like 3 NBA level players on his team (that were playing through injuries anyway)... that's out-of-top5 player ?

I think nobody would ever dare to say Payton/Penny/Pippen > Hakeem in '96. seriously, Hakeem was clearly on another level. I can't really imagine people picking Robinson over Hakeem at the time... with that WCF from the year before in mind, damn hard statement to make. it's like (hypothetically) Gasol embarrassed Dwight last year and this year people are picking Dwight when their stats didn't change at all from last year.

you have to focus more on actual ability as a player, because overall stats are so dependant upon your teammates. Hakeem at this point is a two-way dominant big without legit flaws in any category. post scoring, midrange scoring, rebounding, help/team defense, man defense, passing out of double teams, leadership, clutch scoring... he had it all. you simply have to understand how rare historically it is to combine all of those elements at the same time.

would you really pick someone who severely regresses in the playoffs and whose style isn't suited to playoff basketball in general (Rob) ? would you really pick someone whose natural (in)capabilities don't allow him to be a defensive anchor because of his poor shotblocking ? (Malone)

if a player is so dominant as Hakeem was in 93-95, there needs to be a good reason to exclude him out of POY contention in '96. nothing like that happened. his team performed significantly worse and was swept in the playoffs... but you can't win without being healthy. individually Hakeem played worse statistically... but that wasn't the case on the court, just the circumstances vastly different (swarming defense ignoring his teammates, a lot of trouble getting him the ball, offense out of sync etc).

I can understand your reasoning though - stats are showing a lot after all.

Hakeem was not all that dominant in 93-95. He was dominant in spurts and you guys take the Robinson series and remember that as being Hakeem all the time. He wasn't even close to being that player 90% of the time. It's like taking Amare's WCF's performance from 2005 or whenever and remembering him as being that dominant against everybody all the time.

And for the record, this is the first time I've ever seen anybody imply that Robinson had a significantly better supporting cast than Hakeem.

Clutch Scoring, Leadership ... he had it all <<<< For one series.

If he was as dominant as you say he was - why couldn't he ever dominate Zo ? Look at his stats against Zo at any point in either persons career. Look at prime Hakeem against rookie Zo. Their very first match up Hakeem went 7 of 17 for 14 points, 8 of 22, 6 of 17, 5 of 13 - he had some decent games, 31 points on rookie Zo being the highpoint.

I mean for someone who you guys remember as being automatic from the mid-range/mid-post he had wayyy too many 9 of 22, 9 of 24, 9 of 23, 7 of 21 type games.

And he did have flaws, he wasn't the have it all player you guys remember. His passing was not as good as you people think it was and he turned the ball over wayyy too much for an elite player.

And then people have this selective memory. They forget how stupid Bob Hill was.
They somehow remember Olajuwon completely dominating Ewing in the Finals, but don't remember his game 7 stinker.

And the two playoff runs, where he has these gaudy stats, he shot the ball at an Iverson-esque rate. His 94-95 season is 3rd all time in terms of shot attempts and the 93-94 is 7th all time in terms of shot attempts.

[ElGee]

^^^Doc - arguably the biggest strength of the 96 Bulls (outside of general defensive prowess and startling good ball movement) was the easy points they earned from their defense off of steals (often jumpstarted by Pippen or Jordan).

[Silver Bullet]

hmmm....

Actually, I wasn't aware that a blocked shot counts as a FGA. Nor was I aware that a steal gets counted as a turnover.
The formula for possessions is -

FGA - Offensive Rebounds + Turnovers + some factor*(FTA)

The formula for defensive rating is -
(Opp points allowed/possessions) *100

EDIT: And maybe it makes sense to look at differential vs league average... I'm not sure. If you're better than the league average by 10 in 1985 vs if you're better than league average by 1 in 2003-04 - I don't know what information one can glean from that.

[ElGee]

Hakeem was not all that dominant in 93-95. He was dominant in spurts and you guys take the Robinson series and remember that as being Hakeem all the time. He wasn't even close to being that player 90% of the time. It's like taking Amare's WCF's performance from 2005 or whenever and remembering him as being that dominant against everybody all the time.

And for the record, this is the first time I've ever seen anybody imply that Robinson had a significantly better supporting cast than Hakeem.

I think it was better. Especially in 95. But it doesn't matter -- I'm concerned with how well they played. Robinson gets way too much flack for losing. Hakeem is remember (too?) fondly for winning (see G7 94 Finals example).

Clutch Scoring, Leadership ... he had it all <<<< For one series.

If he was as dominant as you say he was - why couldn't he ever dominate Zo ? Look at his stats against Zo at any point in either persons career. Look at prime Hakeem against rookie Zo. Their very first match up Hakeem went 7 of 17 for 14 points, 8 of 22, 6 of 17, 5 of 13 - he had some decent games, 31 points on rookie Zo being the highpoint.

I mean for someone who you guys remember as being automatic from the mid-range/mid-post he had wayyy too many 9 of 22, 9 of 24, 9 of 23, 7 of 21 type games.

And he did have flaws, he wasn't the have it all player you guys remember. His passing was not as good as you people think it was and he turned the ball over wayyy too much for an elite player.

This is a fair point.

And then people have this selective memory. They forget how stupid Bob Hill was.
They somehow remember Olajuwon completely dominating Ewing in the Finals, but don't remember his game 7 stinker.

And the two playoff runs, where he has these gaudy stats, he shot the ball at an Iverson-esque rate. His 94-95 season is 3rd all time in terms of shot attempts and the 93-94 is 7th all time in terms of shot attempts.

Context. He was the driving offensive force in that offense. They just ran everything through him. It's similar to my Iverson 2001 example I used in discussing such context in another year. I shudder to think at how many hockey assists Hakeem had in that run (which doesn't show up in something like USG)...

[mysticbb]

I don't have Oliver's book, so I'm not sure about the exact details of the equation, but it's an estimate of points allowed per 100 possessions.

First: Buy that book, it is really worth it.
Second: You are right, DRtg is just the points per 100 possessions allowed. Just count the points an opponents scored and count the possessions. After that devide the points by the amount of possessions and multiple that by 100. It is really that simple
Third: That is the best way to measure the defensive strength of the team. The only improvement would be an adjustment for strength of schedule, but that is all. Thus I have no idea what SB is talking about.
Fourth: Taking the difference to the league average into account the Chicago Bulls anno 1996 had the 20th best defense and the 7th best offense of all time. They have the highest scoring margin ever and only the Milwaukee Bucks in 1971 had an higher SRS.

[Silver Bullet]

As far as the other scenarios presented, I'll say this. We don't care if there is a block or a deflection or an offensive rebound or 10 of such occurrences or 5 forced timeouts or whatever. A defensive possession is over when you secure the ball again (nearly always ending with a defensive rebound or, sadly, an inbounds pass). If a team scores 2 points on that possession, they scored 2 points on that possession. Your 3 situations are exactly the same for figuring out how efficient my defense was. If Amare is blocked and gets his own rebound, the possession didn't end. If he's blocked and Kobe grabs the board, the possession is over (a successful stop) and is counted (Def Reb for Kobe) in the possession calcucation.

I have to disagree - but we'll totally veer into Statistical Analysis board territory if we start getting into the finer details.

Let's just say, i find it a lot easier to trust my method i.e.
oppFG%, Opp TOV's, opp 3PA, opp 3P%, DRB

[mysticbb]

Let's just say, i find it a lot easier to trust my method i.e.
oppFG%, Opp TOV's, opp 3PA, opp 3P%, DRB

What? That is all covered by the points per possession, EVERYTHING of what you are using in your "method". Seriously, DRtg is really simple and the most effective way to say something about defense.

[Silver Bullet]

Let's just say, i find it a lot easier to trust my method i.e.
oppFG%, Opp TOV's, opp 3PA, opp 3P%, DRB

What? That is all covered by the points per possession, EVERYTHING of what you are using in your "method". Seriously, DRtg is really simple and the most effective way to say something about defense.

hmmmm

okay.

The biggest reason why I distrust defensive rating is that you can allow a high oppFG% and still end up with a good defensive rating, which is a no-no in my book.

But I will look deeper into this - maybe there is more to defense than just oppFG%, which I weigh really heavily.

[ElGee]

I don't have Oliver's book, so I'm not sure about the exact details of the equation, but it's an estimate of points allowed per 100 possessions.

First: Buy that book, it is really worth it.
Second: You are right, DRtg is just the points per 100 possessions allowed. Just count the points an opponents scored and count the possessions. After that devide the points by the amount of possessions and multiple that by 100. It is really that simple
Third: That is the best way to measure the defensive strength of the team. The only improvement would be an adjustment for strength of schedule, but that is all. Thus I have no idea what SB is talking about.
Fourth: Taking the difference to the league average into account the Chicago Bulls anno 1996 had the 20th best defense and the 7th best offense of all time. They have the highest scoring margin ever and only the Milwaukee Bucks in 1971 had an higher SRS.

Thanks - I always assumed that about the DRtg formula, but B-R was somewhat cryptic about it. Furthermore, his numbers don't always line up with mine, unless I'm committing a rounding error somewhere.

20th seems about right given their differential.

[mysticbb]

The biggest reason why I distrust defensive rating is that you can allow a high oppFG% and still end up with a good defensive rating, which is a no-no in my book.

What does "high" mean in this context? And which team had a "good" defensive rating and a "high" oppFG%?

[Silver Bullet]

The biggest reason why I distrust defensive rating is that you can allow a high oppFG% and still end up with a good defensive rating, which is a no-no in my book.

What does "high" mean in this context? And which team had a "good" defensive rating and a "high" oppFG%?

The Bulls for example.