Retro POY '93-94 (Voting Complete)

[semi-sentient]

Good stuff TMACFORMVP.

This early/mid 90's are tough for me because I wasn't watching much basketball at all (couldn't afford cable because I was being paid peanuts to serve our great country -- so kept up primarily by reading box scores via USA Today), so that's a good summary of what each player brought to the table. I did catch some weekend and playoff games at the local recreation center though, so that also helps a little.

Anyway...

Regular Season

Code: Select all

Player  GP  MIN   PTS   TS%   REB   AST  STL  BLK  TOV  WS    PER
==================================================================
Hakeem  80  41.0  27.3  .565  11.9  3.6  1.6  3.7  3.4  14.3  25.3
D-Rob   80  40.5  29.8  .577  10.7  4.8  1.7  3.3  3.2  20.0  30.7
Ewing   79  37.6  24.5  .551  11.2  2.3  1.1  2.7  3.3  13.1  22.9
Shaq    81  39.8  29.3  .605  13.2  2.4  0.9  2.9  2.7  16.9  28.5
Malone  82  40.6  25.2  .550  11.5  4.0  1.5  1.5  2.9  13.4  22.9
Pippen  72  38.3  22.0  .544  8.7   5.6  2.9  0.8  3.2  11.2  23.2

Post Season

Code: Select all

Player  GP  MIN   PTS   TS%   REB   AST  STL  BLK  TOV  WS    PER
==================================================================
Hakeem  23  43.0  28.9  .568  11.0  4.3  1.7  4.0  3.6  4.3   27.7
D-Rob   4   36.5  20.0  .471  10.0  3.5  0.8  2.5  2.3  0.3   22.0
Ewing   25  41.3  21.9  .495  11.7  2.6  1.3  3.1  3.3  3.2   20.6 
Shaq    3   42.0  20.7  .517  13.3  2.3  0.7  3.3  3.3  0.3   20.1
Malone  16  43.9  27.1  .531  12.4  3.4  1.4  0.8  2.1  3.1   24.6
Pippen  10  38.4  22.8  .521  8.3   4.6  2.4  0.7  3.7  1.2   22.8

Awards Recognition

Code: Select all

Player  MVP     DPOY   All-NBA   All-Defense
============================================
Hakeem  1       1      1st       1st
D-Rob   2       2      2nd       2nd
Ewing   5       -      ---       ---
Shaq    4       -      3rd       ---
Malone  7       -      1st       ---
Pippen  3       4      1st       1st

Early Rankings:

1. Hakeem Olajuwan - He should be the unanimous #1 guy this year. He pretty much blows everyone out of the water in the playoffs, and he was arguably the best RS performer as well. Dominant overall season and I don't see a case for anyone over him. MVP, DPOY, Finals MVP, All-NBA 1st, All-Defensive 1st. Sweep.
   
   
2. David Robinson - I'm going with The Preacher at #2 for having an incredible RS. Sure, he fell off in the PS as usual, but look at the above stats and notice that it's pretty much the same with Ewing and Shaq as well. The difference is that he was still the best at both ends between the remaining candidates (by a good margin, IMO), so despite his failure in the PS I think stil he's deserving.
   
   
3. Scottie Pippen - Some consider him overrated (I've always had a thing for him though -- homo), but I think he had a heck of a season. I'm very impressed with what he was able to do with the team, and once again he was pretty fantastic on both ends of the floor (and recognized as such). Getting that team as far as he did (RS/PS) minus Jordan is pretty stellar in my book. He definitely had a good cast, but he was also the main reason for the Bulls success. I think he gets unfairly judged because he doesn't have the scoring output of the others, but he more than makes up for that with his play-making abilities, which are pretty easily the best of the bunch. Defensively he's as good as they come as far as wings are concerned, and while he doesn't have quite the impact as some of the bigs in this list, I find it hard to knock him down for something that I don't think is that big of a difference to begin with (we're talking about a prime Pippen here).
   
   
4. Shaquille O'Neal - Dude has a legit case for being the best RS player, at least in terms of being a dominant offense force. Defensively, not really, and that's why he's below Robinson and Pippen, primarily. I hear the big over small talk, but the Magic were a below average defensive team, so as a "defensive anchor" I have to ask -- where was the real impact? This is the same issue I had with some of KG's early years when he "anchored" weak defensive teams. Getting swept out of the first round while having such a huge drop off in production hurts him as well, but he was still good enough in the RS to deserve it over...
   
   
5. Patrick Ewing - He was clearly the weakest offensive player of the bunch, but he makes up of ground on the defensive end. It's a bit crazy that he didn't receive much award recognition (at least All-Defensive), but it's very much understandable since Hakeem and Robinson occupied those slots. Why over Malone? Karl is the better offensive player, but Ewing is the better defender -- by far -- and anchored a historically great defensive team. I also don't think that Malone was even the best offensive player on his own team. Ewing had to be the man on offense (without an all-time great PG, or any kind of legit 2nd option) while being an excellent defensive anchor. Malone had a better post-season run though, probably 2nd best after Hakeem, but at the end he still fell short so I can't give him much love for that. Ewing gets the #5 spot. Just barely.

[lorak]

Seems pretty clear that from a generic stat comparison, Robinson was playing worse than Hakeem, Malone, and Barkley. Now you can argue that Robinson's non-box score impact puts him ahead of people, but no, Robinson wasn't putting up numbers like a top tier guy in the post-season.

Overall not, I agree. But statistic don’t like small samples. Four games series is extremely small sample and that’s why I think we should look at every game (the same case is with Shaq, who had one bad game and two good).

You are talking about game score, but on basketball-refernce is: i.e., 40 is an outstanding performance, 10 is an average performance, etc.
So if Robinson had two games above 20 game score he was way above average.
Even if we assume 21 as middle point for superstars Robinson is no different than Ewing, HO, Barkley and Malone as a whole – they all had 38 that kind of games on 74 possible, so it’s almost half. Just like Robinson.

But it’s not even my point to argue about numbers. My point is that we should look at every game when we are dealing with small samples. Because even one of these two bad Robinson’s games wasn’t as bad as box score numbers suggest, because he played good defense against Malone (or was it Rodman?). And in another one it was a blowout and no other Spurs players show up, only Robinson. Look at the context guys, that all I ask for.

And Robinson had one. The first game you listed was under the points and rebounds requirement.

Oh, c’mon, I though it was clear what I have done
25, 8, 7, 3 blk, .529 FG%
and
27, 12, 4, 2 blk, .524 FG%;

26, 10, 2 and .520 are averages from these two games. I should also add 5 assists. You see now?
BTW, 25, 8, 7, 3 – that kind of game only Robinson and Hakeem (twice) had in 1994 PS.

re: Malone vs Robinson

First, if some of you penalized Robinson In 1995 because of performance against Hakeem – Robinson had .553 TS%) – you should do that same this year with Malone - .505 TS%, playing more minutes and having John Stockton = 1-2 easy baskets per game.

Second, anybody remember who was Spurs point guard that year? That’s very good trivia question, because answer is – they hadn’t any point guard.

In post season 6 Spurs players played more than 20 MPG: Robinson, Rodman, Ellis, Knight, Anderson and Del Negro. So that was basically San Antonio rotation.

Everybody talks about Robinson, but let's look at other Spurs players:

Ellis - he was supposed to be second option: 10.5 PTS, .465 TS%
Anderson - another "scorer": 8.3 PTS, .412 ts%
Knight - point guard from the bench: 9.3 PTS, .400 TS%, 3.0 AST
Del Negro - another "scorer" who was supposed to make Robinson's life easier: 7.3 PTS, .497 TS%
Rodman - he was as always very good rebounder, but nothing more: 8.3 PTS, .469 TS%
BTW, I guess that Rodman was defending Malone, not Robinson, so why some of you penalize Admiral for Malone very good performance?

Overall we see that main rotation Spurs players played very bad in post season. That was the reason that Jazz could focus their defense on Robinson and eventually won the series.


re: Ewing above Robinson

I can’t understand how anyone could do that. Robinson had far superior regular season and Ewing in playoffs was destroyed by Hakeem much more than Robinson in 1995. Maybe not everyone remember: .360 FG% (.390 TS%) that’s as bad as possible for a big man. And keep in mind that while Robinson for most of the time defend Hakeem alone, in 1994 finals whole Knicks team defended Akeem, not only Ewing, but during long stretches of games Oakley or Mason also were playing against Olajuwon.

I think we should give Ewing credit for being anchor of one of the best defenses of all time (and that’s why he will be in my top 5), but we also shouldn’t forget how awful he was in the finals.

[mysticbb]

The numbers:

Code: Select all

Rk Player               PER  WS   ON   SUM
1  David Robinson      29.7 19.1  6.8 55.5
2  Hakeem Olajuwon     26.4 18.8  5.3 50.5
3  Shaquille O'Neal    27.6 16.6  5.4 49.6
4  Karl Malone         23.6 17.1  4.9 45.6
5  Patrick Ewing       21.7 15.3  4.5 41.5
6  Reggie Miller       20.9 15.0  5.3 41.2
7  John Stockton       21.5 14.0  5.0 40.5
8  Charles Barkley     24.6 11.2  2.9 38.7
9  Shawn Kemp          21.6 11.3  5.8 38.6
10 Scottie Pippen      23.1 11.9  3.4 38.3
11 Horace Grant        20.2 12.1  4.5 36.8
12 Gary Payton         17.8  9.7  6.0 33.5
13 Derrick Coleman     21.3 10.4  1.8 33.4
14 Kevin Johnson       21.1  9.8  2.1 33.0
15 Mookie Blaylock     18.8 10.4  3.6 32.9
16 Rod Strickland      20.5  9.9  2.3 32.6
17 Detlef Schrempf     15.9  9.9  6.4 32.2
18 Kevin Willis        18.1 10.1  3.6 31.8
19 Chris Webber        21.7  7.8  0.9 30.4
20 Dikembe Mutombo     17.9 10.6  1.5 29.9


As usual, playoff games weighted 3 times as much as the regular season games.

Some surprising results. David Robinson again the statistically speaking best player, but everyone should already know my view on Robinson's boxscore numbers. I'm pretty sure he had lower impact than others with similar numbers (in terms of advanced metrics). His playoffs were weak, lost in the 1st round to Malone/Stockton. He gets punished for that.
Olajuwon with the title and a rather weak support. His playoff performance was great. The numbers are close enough to Robinson that I'm confident to put him ahead at the #1 spot. I wouldn't even discuss that further unlike in 1995.

Shaquille O'Neal with a great regular season, but his playoffs were also somewhat disappointing. Loss in the first round to the Pacers. Shaq with a good game 1, but with not much help. Bad game 2 with foul trouble. Okish game 3, but with Penny turning the ball over 10 times the game was a blowout loss. If Robinson gets punished, O'Neal is too.
The "Karl Malone or John Stockton" question: In 1995 I voted for Stockton over Malone, but in this season I will not do that. The Jazz ended up in the WCF while Malone played better in the playoffs than Stockton.

The Knicks had one of the best defensive teams in the history of the NBA in that season. And Ewing was a HUGE reason for that. They played the Rockets in the finals and lost in 7. Ewing had no chance against Olajuwon and looked way weaker than Malone. I don't see the point of moving him ahead of Malone.

The Bulls weren't that strong in that season, but well, I still liked the fact that they won 55 games and nearly made the ECF. The biggest reason for their success was defense and the ability to keep the TPO going. Not to the extend as it was a year before, because they really lacked that efficient scorer, but it was enough. Adding Longley gets underrated, imho, the Bulls won 12 of their 17 games in which he started. Also Grant deserves more credit than he usually gets. The Bulls won 4 of their 10 games without Pippen even though 8 were on the road. Yeah, there was no quality win included, but nobody should expected that. Anyway, Pippen's boxscore numbers are also somewhat underrating him, but I wouldn't put him ahead of Ewing that season.

All other players listed aren't candidates for the Top5 in 1994 imho. I'm thinking about Shaquille O'Neal and Karl Malone. Anyone with a compelling argument for Malone over O'Neal?

Vote:

1. Hakeen Olajuwon
2. David Robinson
3. Shaquille O'Neal
4. Karl Malone
5. Patrick Ewing

HM: Scottie Pippen

[kaima]

What is your obsession with David Robinson? Did you go to West Point or something?

For the years 94-96, Robinson is a fascinating case. One of the most bizarre in NBA history when you look at his regular season numbers versus post-season failures.

The fact that this came, again and again, in key matchup contexts just adds to it.

And, in case you hadn't noticed, this vote is about focusing on individual play. Robinson is focused on, because his play changes so much between the regular season and key playoff series.

But then, all of this has been gone over many times during my so-called "obsessing". Obsession versus ADD?

If Robinson gets credit for all those regular season wins, then he should get equal credit for another playoff ouster that involved him playing terribly.

But the regular season and playoffs aren't equal sample sizes, so why would you weigh them equally?

Because the playoffs tell us more about his value, due to matchup contexts and the beatings that result, than, say, games played against teams like the Clippers. A lot more.

Robinson's supporters want to point to the regular season. My point is, if the regular season means so much, why did Robinson do so much worse in the post-season?

As far as sample sizes, teams go weeks or months without playing each other in the regular season. In the post-season matchups become paramount, and this is where Robinson came up short. This tells me that his value isn't nearly as great as his regular season stats would have us believe.

I've yet to hear a good argument for Robinson's value, other than stat-counting of his mirage-like regular seasons. Playoff play means more in this case than most, because Robinson doesn't tend to come up just short, but rather turns into a shell of what he was in the regular season.

[mysticbb]

And, in case you hadn't noticed, this vote is about focusing on individual play.

Yes, but not to the extend you are doing that. You are reducing the whole thing to a specific 1on1 situation.

And btw, Olajuwon and Robinson played 5 times in 1993/94 against each other. The Spurs won 3 times. Robinson with 26.6/14.2/5.4 on 52.8 ts%, Olajuwon with 24.2/12.6/4.8 on 49.2 ts%. Doesn't look like Robinson only played good against the Clippers.

[kaima]

Because of small sample (only 4 games) averages don’t tell a lot.

Please.

Does this mean that Shaq's 95 Finals doesn't count? How about his 02 Finals, is it possible that he's a phony Finals MVP for that year? Maybe Jordan is in 91, since he only played in five games?

Further, I wouldn't use sample size as an argument because, let's face it, Robinson's sample size on this score is either 10 (v Malone from 94 to 96), 15 (v Malone from 94 to 98) or 16 (v Malone and Hakeem from 94 to 96).

Under that analysis, Robinson only outscored Malone twice in fifteen games (G1 96 by 6 and G3 98 by 3, which was immediately followed by a 34 point outburst from Malone where he nearly outscored Robinson and Duncan combined). He averaged 26 ppg over 15 playoff matchups, and this was against two teams that had frontlines of Rodman/Robinson and Robinson/Duncan.

In 94 Robinson averaged 20 ppg against Malone's defense. In 96, 19.3. In 98, as a second or co-option, he averaged 18.8 (which is rather telling contextually as well; Robinson was better with somebody else shouldering the offensive load).

Over the course of 3 playoff series, Robinson averaged 19.3 on Malone's D. In his prime years, 94-96, he averaged 19.6.

Over those same two playoff series, Malone averaged 26.7 ppg.

In ten playoff games from 94 and 96, Robinson hit or went over his average exactly once. He was under his average in every other game, and had games of 12, 16, 11, 11 and 17 against Malone's defense in that same span.

By comparison, Malone never scored less than 22 in any game.

The point here is that this was a typical playoff matchup between these two, no matter the pretense you want to pass off in the converse.

This is isn't to say that Robinson's 96, or 95, or 98 should be calculated, in whatever formula you use, against him. It is, however, being brought up to show that the 94 results are not outliers for Robinson's career, and should not be dismissed as you're now trying to do.

The fact is Robinson had two very good games:
G1 – 25, 8, 7, 3 blk, .529 FG%
G4 – 27, 12, 4, 2 blk, .524 FG%; Stockton was amazing in that game.

And in both, Malone still outscored him easily. In game 1, Malone had 36. In game 4, he had 34.

BTW, I thought you were all about aggregates? By your own stated standard, the simple fact is this: Robinson averaged 20 ppg in this series, 9 off his average, while Malone averaged 29.

one decent:
G3 – 16, 11, .381 FG% ( 8/21 FG); it was a blowout, no other Spur even show up, so Robinson still was the best Spurs player.

13 points off his average is decent?

and one awful:
G2 – 12, 9, 5 blk, .143 FG% (2/14 FG), but Malone had 7/25 FG so if Robinson defended him (I don’t know, didn’t saw this game) we should give him credit for that.

Malone outscored Robinson by 11 in that game.

In the series, Malone outscored Robinson in every game, and never by less than 7.

DRob also never hit his season average a single time with Malone guarding him, while Malone topped thirty multiple times with a supposed all-time great defensive frontcourt coming at him and switching off on him.

And in addendum, I notice that you don't even compare these guys when doing game-by-game analysis. Instead you just post Robinson's stats in a vacuum, much like you did in the Hakeem debate.

[kaima]

And, in case you hadn't noticed, this vote is about focusing on individual play.

Yes, but not to the extend you are doing that.

Says who?

I wasn't aware that one standard for player analysis ruled. Who laid down this rule, and how was it decided that your side won the argument?

I'm real curious.

I look at the whole picture. If I didn't, I wouldn't rank Robinson in my top 5s at all.

I am rather doubtful that some people are truly weighting and punishing him fairly for his post-season failures, however. To remain at two after losing 9 points off your average between seasons doesn't seem like clear punishment to me.

You are reducing the whole thing to a specific 1on1 situation.

And I explained this before.

Matchups tell us, arguably, as much about an individual player's value as any efficiency ranking. They show us a player's mentality, and his ability in skillsets.

It's obvious that Robinson was rather lacking here.

Or do you have a good explanation, other than random bad luck, for the difference between his playoff numbers and his regular season numbers?

And btw, Olajuwon and Robinson played 5 times in 1993/94 against each other. The Spurs won 3 times. Robinson with 26.6/14.2/5.4 on 52.8 ts%, Olajuwon with 24.2/12.6/4.8 on 49.2 ts%. Doesn't look like Robinson only played good against the Clippers.

Yeah? Tell, me what happened when Robinson played Olajuwon in the playoffs.

This gets back to matchup analysis, and focus.

When teams get serious, Robinson goes home. And in numerically awful fashion as far as matchup analysis.

[mysticbb]

Says who?

I wrote that. And that wasn't about rules, I merely stated my opinion on the way you are doing it. ;)

Yeah? Tell, me what happened when Robinson played Olajuwon in the playoffs.

They didn't meet that season in the playoffs. Now, tell me, do you want to use the 1995 playoffs for that? You want to ignore the fact that Robinson played BETTER than Olajuwon in the 5 matchups during the 1993/94 season?

This gets back to matchup analysis, and focus.

Yes, with your personal bias included. ;)

Anyway, I have Olajuwon ahead of Robinson anyway in 1994.

[kaima]

Yeah? Tell, me what happened when Robinson played Olajuwon in the playoffs.

They didn't meet that season in the playoffs. Now, tell me, do you want to use the 1995 playoffs for that?

Have you read my other posts?

My point is not to use that as anything other than a broad -- not specific-to-placement relative to votes in this season -- example of Robinson's key skillset problems.

You want to ignore the fact that Robinson played BETTER than Olajuwon in the 5 matchups during the 1993/94 season?

As I said before, if I ignored such things, I would not rank Robinson.

It appears you're the one ignoring my statements and standards.

This gets back to matchup analysis, and focus.

Yes, with your personal bias included.

I notice you can't answer the questions as to the differences in Robinson's play in the playoffs and regular season. Ignoring it and rewarding it, in a macro space, sounds quite biased to me on the analysis scale.

Do you care about Robinson's playoff failures? How about his lack of fundamentals? If you did, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what happened in May.

The two amalgamate, begging huge questions as to Robinon's value.

Anyway, I have Olajuwon ahead of Robinson anyway in 1994.

How could you not?

Point is, I think Robinson should be lower than that.

[lorak]

Robinson only outscored Malone twice

(…)
Malone where he nearly outscored Robinson and Duncan combined).

(…)

And in both, Malone still outscored him easily.
.

So you are basically looking only on points and who outscored who. No matter that they don’t defended each other (I guess in 1994 Rodman defended Malone), no matter pace, minutes played, production in other areas, especially efficiency (for example Malone in 1994 against Hakeem was much less efficient than Robinson in 1995, and they both scored on similar volume) or partners. Only points scored matter. Cool, it’s good to know that.

I also have found it interesting how you ignore mystibb’s point about Hakeem vs Robinson h2h matchup in 1993/94 season, in which Robinson was slightly better.

[sp6r=underrated]

What is your obsession with David Robinson? Did you go to West Point or something?

I have found him very persuasive, but it is . He has been a member for almost seven years, and only had like 40 posts before he reappeared to rip Robinson apart.

It reminds me one of my favorite all-time realgm threads:

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=874986

[kaima]

What is your obsession with David Robinson? Did you go to West Point or something?

I have found him very persuasive, but it is .

Just don't say it's about seamen.

[kaima]

Robinson only outscored Malone twice

(…)
Malone where he nearly outscored Robinson and Duncan combined).

(…)

And in both, Malone still outscored him easily.
.

So you are basically looking only on points and who outscored who.

I think that's called offense and defense.

Do you think that Malone holding Robinson to 20, required no defense?

If so, Robinson's far worse than I thought.

No matter that they don’t defended each other (I guess in 1994 Rodman defended Malone),

Malone defended Robinson.

He also had to contend with a great man defender in Rodman, with Robinson waiting at the rim. There were also, to my recollection, frequent switches where Robinson would check Malone, then back to Rodman, and so on.

Nothing worked. Malone went postal, DRob went home.

especially efficiency

Robinson's PER dropped from nearly 30 in the regular season to 22 against Malone. His TS% went from 58 to 47.

I also have found it interesting how you ignore mystibb’s point about Hakeem vs Robinson h2h matchup in 1993/94 season, in which Robinson was slightly better.

Explain how I ignored that. I dealt with it in the context of regular season versus playoffs.

It appears you think that game 3 of the regular season is the same as game 3 of the WCF.

Good to know.

Further, why is it that you look at Robinson's playoff numbers in a vacuum, instead of comparing his games to Malone's?

Also, when are you going to get back to your standard of aggregates, pure?

[mysticbb]

Have you read my other posts?

Uh, no, I just answer randomly to some people here. (I guess that is the answer you expected, isn't it? ;))

My point is ...

Don't worry, I got your point, it isn't that hard to understand what you are writing. I just don't agree with some of your views on the situations back then and don't agree with the way you are weighted things here.

It appears you're the one ignoring my statements and standards.

Actually I critized them, that is hardly ignoring them: ;)

Do you care about Robinson's playoff failures?

And you asked me whether I would read your posts? Seriously, WTF?

Usually I'm the one who is critizing Robinson for his lack of leadership, weaker playoff performances, somewhat limited offensive game in terms of skills and so on. And right now I defend him. Somehow I feel strange about that. :D

How about his lack of fundamentals?

Well, it is there, no doubt about that. But overall the effect on the game is important, not in how many different ways someone could possible effect the game.

I give you an example: Player A has 3 moves, player B only 1. If player B is way more effective (and efficient) with that one move than player A, it doesn't matter that player A is "more skilled". ;)

[lorak]

Malone defended Robinson.

But Malone wasn’t defended by Robinson. So you can’t say “Malone scored XX points so it was Robinson's fault”.

Explain how I ignored that. I dealt with it in the context of regular season versus playoffs.

It appears you think that game 3 of the regular season is the same as game 3 of the WCF.

No, but in this thread we are talking only about 1994 season. So the only data we have from h2h matchup between Hakeem and Robinson are games from regular season. And in these games Robinson was better.

Also, when are you going to get back to your standard of aggregates, pure?

I never used advanced metrics on small samples or without context.

On the other hand you are using only points, even if players didn’t guarded each other, or you are comparing points from different series – so pace, minutes played, defensive schemes or partners don’t matter in your evaluation.

[kaima]

Have you read my other posts?

Uh, no, I just answer randomly to some people here. (I guess that is the answer you expected, isn't it? )

No. But it is what I think has been going on, considering your replies on the merits.

My point is ...

Don't worry, I got your point, it isn't that hard to understand what you are writing. I just don't agree with some of your views

The problem is, that's your only argument.

It appears you're the one ignoring my statements and standards.

Actually I critized them, that is hardly ignoring them:

Yeah, inaccurately.

Do you care about Robinson's playoff failures?

And you asked me whether I would read your posts? Seriously, WTF?

Usually I'm the one who is critizing Robinson for his lack of leadership, weaker playoff performances, somewhat limited offensive game in terms of skills and so on. And right now I defend him. Somehow I feel strange about that.

Really? I hadn't picked up on that. I mean, as far as serious counterargumentation as to matchup analysis, you've said...nothing.

How about his lack of fundamentals?

Well, it is there, no doubt about that. But overall the effect on the game is important, not in how many different ways someone could possible effect the game.

I give you an example: Player A has 3 moves, player B only 1. If player B is way more effective (and efficient) with that one move than player A, it doesn't matter that player A is "more skilled".

20 ppg in the playoffs. 29 ppg in the playoffs.

The former is the more efficient player. The latter is the more skilled.

[kaima]

Malone defended Robinson.

But Malone wasn’t defended by Robinson. So you can’t say “Malone scored XX points so it was Robinson's fault”.

You ignored what I said about switches.

Come on. You didn't even watch this series, and you're telling me what happened.

Further, there was an entire game Rodman didn't play.

It's not the most complimentary argument to continually point out that Rodman was teamed with Robinson, and yet the two combined to allow Malone 29 ppg.

Explain how I ignored that. I dealt with it in the context of regular season versus playoffs.

It appears you think that game 3 of the regular season is the same as game 3 of the WCF.

No, but in this thread we are talking only about 1994 season. So the only data we have from h2h matchup between Hakeem and Robinson are games from regular season.

Really? Interesting that you would post this, then:

no matter pace, minutes played, production in other areas, especially efficiency (for example Malone in 1994 against Hakeem was much less efficient than Robinson in 1995, and they both scored on similar volume) or partners..

[mysticbb]

The problem is, that's your only argument.

Argument for what? I doubt that you even got the point.

Seriously, I don't argue against Olajuwon over Robinson by any means, not the slightest for 1994.

20 ppg in the playoffs. 29 ppg in the playoffs.

The former is the more efficient player. The latter is the more skilled.

Ah, got it. Only ppg in the playoffs is important. Glad you pointed that out. ;)

[kaima]

The problem is, that's your only argument.

Argument for what? I doubt that you even got the point.

Your only point is that you disagree.

Fascinating.

Seriously, I don't argue against Olajuwon over Robinson by any means, not the slightest for 1994.

Who made that a point, other than you?

As opposed to the issues surrounding efficiency versus skillsets, regular season versus playoffs, which you never seriously engage in.

I look at numbers, analyze matchups, look at tape. If you're only interested in the first, that's fine.

But I'm pretty bored with personal statements that include no content as to why my way is "flawed".

Simply put, that's less than a flawed argument.

20 ppg in the playoffs. 29 ppg in the playoffs.

The former is the more efficient player. The latter is the more skilled.

Ah, got it. Only ppg in the playoffs is important. Glad you pointed that out.

Either you're trying to use sophistry here, or you don't have a very good grasp on basketball. Though, I'm sure it's very arguable to you that Robinson played Malone to standstill? Better?

Be sure to mention five games from the regular season. Maybe all 82.

Those numbers have a huge amount to do with skillsets. But you don't care about player analysis in that realm, so...

Now, this is going to devolve, because all you're bringing are personal comments. I leave you to it.

[mysticbb]

Now, this is going to devolve, because all you're bringing are personal comments. I leave you to it.

Actually, you are right. I'm somewhat bored and you are really entertaining. That is all.

But I at least want to give you one serious reply:

Using "your" way is all fine, I actually do a very similar thing, the only problem is I come to a different conclusion. Especially in terms of the value of a specific matchup. There will always be a situation in which a player A looks worse against a specific player B, but he looks better against the majority of other players, while the player B looks worse against them. And overall I'm judging the whole season, that includes all 82 regular season games. To give an extreme example: If player C sucks for 82 games, but plays well against a specific player D in 4 games, while the player D played great in the 82 games, but weaker in that matchup, that doesn't make player C the better player in comparison to player D for the WHOLE year.

No serious answer again:

But well, you just have "your" way. :D