Retro POY '79-80 (Voting Complete)

[ronnymac2]

Bird and Magic are EASILY my one and two. I always like to give rookies extra credit- the benefit of the doubt. I just like how rookies play. Always trying their hardest.

Wait, what? No mention whatsoever of Kareem???



I'm going to have to comment on that egregious oversight later when I have time.

Nah, I was joking. I'm known for the infamous 1984 vote of Alex English over rookie Michael Jordan. I've also repeatedly been hard on all-time great rookies, including Shaq, Robinson, Duncan, and Jordan.

My real contenders are KAJ, Julius, Gervin, and Moses. I actually haven't looked at Magic and Bird in total yet. I'm re-watching Magic's game six to get a feel for what happened in that game.

[TrueLAfan]

1. Kareem. Easy pick. This was the last time Kareem was truly close to or at his peak…he slumped by about 5-10% (IMO) in 1981, and about 5-10% in the next year, then stayed at that plateau for another half a decade. That being said, he was only an okay rebounder in 1980. But, of course, he shot over 60% from the field, averaged 25 a game, averaged almost four and a half assist a game, and was almost certainly the DPOY. Then he went out and cranked it up a notch in the postseason. Magic’s Game 6 in the Finals is rightly remembered as an all-time great game, a game for the ages. But Kareem’s Game 5 should, frankly, be thought of in the same way. It was a 2-2 series going back to Philadelphia, and it was a tight game. Kareem had 26 points latein the third quarter when he rolled his ankle. It was truly bad high ankle sprain; the doctors thought it was broken and advised him to go to the hospital right away. Kareem stayed. He returned in the fourth--"Like playing through an electrical storm of pain" was how he put it. He scored 14 points in the quarter. With the game tied at 103 with 33 second left, Kareem powered to the hoop, dunked and got fouled, and finished the three point play, putting the game away. He averaged 33.4 and 14 with almost 5 blocvks in the Finals; it’s nice that Magic’s game was recognized and remembered Kareem was the real Finals MVP. He’s a runaway MVP this year, too.

2. Erving. A totally dominant player. He stopped deferring to others as much this year, and it helped everyone…his team, his individual play, the league as a whole. Outplayed Bird in the EC Finals, though Bird had a good series (though Bird was out of gas in Game 5).

3. Bird. Almost there. Bill Fitch screwed the pooch with this team in the postseason—overcoaching and lousy substitution patterns in the EC Finals against Philly. Cowens was shot, but Fitch kept him in (sadly, it would have been better for the Celts of Rick Robey had played 4-8 more minutes a game). The guy that held the team together was Bird, and it was a 61 win team. Props for that.

4-5. Marques Johnson/George Gervin/Moses Malone. Close between Marques and Gervin. Malone may be a bit farther back. Still deciding this one.

The Dilemma of Moses. Moses Malone had, as always, good numbers. Rick Barry was fading and was only a little above average at this point. But Calvin Murphy was there, and so was a young Robert Reid. And Allen Leavell. Rudy T played 1800 effective minutes. They had the Whopper and Dunleavy. It was not a bad team. The team had balance between outside scoring and interior scoring, and good playmaking. And they underperformed—again. What they really lacked was interior D, and that falls under Moses’s area. In many seasons, his strengths superseded his flaws. I don’t think they did this year. (And MVP and All-NBA voters at the time agreed.)

[Doctor MJ]

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - Easily #1 & I really don't see an argument being made for another player. League MVP & should of been the Finals MVP.

Kareem's easily #1 for the year, and he'd have been a worthy Finals MVP, but I don't think he got robbed.

-Look at the cumulative stats for the finals, Kareem's only got a slight edge.
-Remember that even when a guy isn't racking up stats, his presence on the court is positive, and Magic played a lot more than Kareem.
-Factor in that Magic had a far higher TS%, and that you can't really argue that it's because of Kareem's presence because it went up without Kareem. Part of it is due to Magic basically his whole career getting to the free throw line like a mad men.
-Factor in that Magic's Game 6 involved him taking on Kareem's role, and having a better game doing it than any of Kareem's game despite Philly having their back against the wall.

It's incredible impressive performance.

And as far as a game not being a season -that's certainly true, no one should put Magic at #1. That said, Magic had a PER better than Bird in both the regular and post-season in addition to that finals performance.

[ElGee]

As you know, I don't think too highly of PER (I've certainly never referenced it in a basketball discussion).

That said, Bird was 4th in MVP voting and was the primary force behind a ~11 SRS turnaround in Boston (!). I'm not sure how many people thought Magic was better than Bird in May of 1980. Bird was 1st team all-NBA. Magic made neither.

It seems obvious to me from an all-around standpoint that Bird was well ahead of Magic in these early years (one SI reader in 1980 called Bird and Erving the two best forwards in NBA history). Bird's shouldering a scoring load while Magic isn't even doing what would come to make him legendary...running the offense. During one game from 1980 the commentator (Barry?) thought Bird -- not Magic -- was the best passer in the NBA, as a rookie.

I want to be clear not to prop up rookie Bird too much, nor denigrate rookie Magic too much, but I just don't see the evidence or argument for having Magic over Bird, unless someone just arbitrarily values game 6 100x more than normal (and to them I would ask why, say, Barkley didn't get a boost in 1994).

[tkb]

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Julius Erving
3. Moses Malone
4. Larry Bird
5. Magic Johnson

[ThaRegul8r]

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - Easily #1 & I really don't see an argument being made for another player. League MVP & should of been the Finals MVP.

Kareem's easily #1 for the year, and he'd have been a worthy Finals MVP, but I don't think he got robbed.

I respectfully disagree.

-Look at the cumulative stats for the finals, Kareem's only got a slight edge.

Kareem: 33.4 points, 13.6 rebounds, 3.2 assists, 4.6 blocked shots, 54.9 percent shooting from the floor, 57.8 percent true shooting in 40.6 minutes per game
Magic: 21.5 points, 11.2 rebounds, 8.7 assists, 5 turnovers (NBA Finals record for six-game series), 2.67 steals (NBA Finals record for six-game series), 57.3 percent shooting from the floor, 87.5 percent shooting from the line, 64.8 percent true shooting in 42.7 minutes per game.

But those numbers were bolstered by Game 6. Going into Game 6, he was averaging:

17.4 points, 10.4 rebounds, 9 assists, 5 turnovers, 2.6 steals, 55.9 percent shooting from the floor, 80.8 percent free throw shooting, 61.8 percent true shooting in 41.8 minutes

Game by game:

Game 1 - 109-102 LA:
Kareem: 33 points (game-high) on 14-21 FG, 5-5 FT, 14 rebounds (game-high), five assists, six blocks (game-high) in 41 minutes
Magic: 16 points on 8-12 FG (no FTs), nine rebounds, 10 assists (game-high), three steals (game-high) in 40 minutes

Game 2 - 107-104 Phi:
Kareem: 38 points (game-high) on 19-31 FG, 0-2 FT, 14 rebounds (game-high), three assists, five blocks (tied for game-high w/Erving), two steals in 41 minutes
Magic: 13 points on 5-8 FG, 3-3 FT, eight rebounds, 11 assists (game-high), two steals, five turnovers, five fouls in 40 minutes

Game 3 - 111-101 LA:
Kareem: 33 points (game-high) on 13-30 FG, 7-9 FT, 14 rebounds (game-high), three assists, four blocks (game-high) in 41 minutes
Magic: 16 points on 6-12 FG, 4-6 FT, 11 rebounds, five assists, five turnovers, two steals in 44 minutes

Game 4 - 105-102 Phi:
Kareem: 23 points on 11-27 FG, 1-1 FT, 11 rebounds (game-high), four assists, four blocks (tied for game-high w/Caldwell Jones), six turnovers in 39 minutes
Magic: 28 points (game-high) on 10-14 FG, 8-10 FT, nine rebounds, nine assists, three steals, one block in 45 minutes

NOTE: "Los Angeles would get the ball down by three with a chance to tie it on three. However, Magic's in-bounds pass was stolen by Bobby Jones to save the game for Philadelphia" (http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1980.htm).

Game 5 - 108-103 LA:
Kareem: 40 points (game-high) on 16-24 FG (66.7%), 8-9 FT, 15 rebounds (tied for game-high w/Magic), four blocks (game-high), five turnovers in 41 minutes while playing through injury
Magic: 14 points on 4-13 FG, 6-7 FT, 15 rebounds (tied for game-high w/Kareem), 10 assists (tied with game-high w/Lionel Hollins), three steals, five fouls, 10 turnovers (NBA Finals single-game record) in 39 minutes

Game 6 - 123-107 LA:
Kareem: DNP
Magic: 42 points (game-high) on 14-23 FG (60.9%), 14-14 FT, 15 rebounds (game-high), seven assists, three steals, five turnovers in 47 minutes

Magic had the epic Game 6, but I'm not seeing how Kareem isn't the clear MVP overall. The cumulative numbers are deceptive because the one game boosted them up, but the final averages are not indicative of the way he played the whole series.

-Remember that even when a guy isn't racking up stats, his presence on the court is positive, and Magic played a lot more than Kareem.
-Factor in that Magic had a far higher TS%, and that you can't really argue that it's because of Kareem's presence because it went up without Kareem. Part of it is due to Magic basically his whole career getting to the free throw line like a mad men.
-Factor in that Magic's Game 6 involved him taking on Kareem's role, and having a better game doing it than any of Kareem's game despite Philly having their back against the wall.

It's incredible impressive performance.

It was indeed. And I'm taking nothing away from it, but Kareem was the MVP of the series.

[ElGee]

I'd like to hear more about George Gervin, if possible, from the older crowd.

I just watched 10 minutes of another Spurs game (this one, fittingly, from 1980) and Ice never really does it for me. Seems very one-dimensional, and obviously a great scorer on the stat-sheet, but even that doesn't resonate with me.

Thanks guys.

[Sedale Threatt]

Great quote from Westphal from the Sports Illustrated article: "...before long, everybody realized that Magic or no Magic, this team is nothing without Kareem. I mean nothing."

[Sedale Threatt]

I'd like to hear more about George Gervin, if possible, from the older crowd.

I just watched 10 minutes of another Spurs game (this one, fittingly, from 1980) and Ice never really does it for me. Seems very one-dimensional, and obviously a great scorer on the stat-sheet, but even that doesn't resonate with me.

Thanks guys.

That is the exact same impression I've always gotten. Great, great scorer -- phenomenal -- but that's about it. No way I'm ever going to take him over guys like Kareem, Malone, Bird or Magic. They were just better players across the board.

[semi-sentient]

I want to be clear not to prop up rookie Bird too much, nor denigrate rookie Magic too much, but I just don't see the evidence or argument for having Magic over Bird, unless someone just arbitrarily values game 6 100x more than normal (and to them I would ask why, say, Barkley didn't get a boost in 1994).

Regular Season

Code: Select all

Player      GP  MIN   PTS   TS%   REB   AST   STL  BLK  TOV  WS
=================================================================
Magic       77  36.3  18.0  .602   7.7  7.3   2.4  0.5  4.0  10.5
Bird        82  36.0  21.3  .538  10.4  4.5   1.7  0.6  3.2  11.2

Post Season

Code: Select all

Player      GP  MIN   PTS   TS%   REB   AST   STL  BLK  TOV  WS
=================================================================
Magic       16  41.1  18.3  .596  10.5  9.4   3.1  0.4  4.1  2.8
Bird         9  41.3  21.3  .511  11.2  4.7   1.6  0.9  3.7  1.1

Statistically, they are close. Bird had to shoulder a larger scoring load, but it's not like he was going ape poop or anything. I think a lot of people look at the turnaround that the Celtics had without taking into account their situation the year before. McAdoo only played 20 games (there were other injuries), and they had a coaching change a fifth of the way into the season (like the Lakers did in 79-80). There is no question that Bird had the biggest impact, but there is a lot that factors that go into such a turnaround.

Magic, on the other hand, didn't have the same load because Kareem was "the man", but it's not like his numbers were all that bad. Still, they managed to improve by 13 games with the addition of Magic, so his presence was most certainly felt in a big way. Bird got his props for being the better player in the RS, but IMO Magic had the better PS and stepped up in a major way on the biggest stage. To me, that's enough to put him ahead, but I certainly wouldn't take any issue with someone putting Bird.

[shawngoat23]

How does Ice compare to Carmelo Anthony?

I feel like Melo's pretty much a pure scorer--a good one at that when he gets hot--, but I've never been impressed with him the way others are.

[ElGee]

^^^Well I just see older posters who don't even have Magic considered for their top 5 or 6. The articles reflect this. The MVP voting reflects. The All-NBA votes reflect this.

Now, they are close statistically. But one has to remember where those statistics are coming from. I don't think anyone is giving Bird too much credit for the 11 SRS turnaround, else he would be No. 1. But he did come in and was The Guy, shouldering the scoring load and rebounding and passing well. Archibald has the ball a lot, but my impression is that Bird was immediately regarded as an impact-passer, if you will, and indeed he was 4th among forwards in apg that year.

Magic, unfortunately, wasn't playing point then. He had the luxury of being a secondary offensive presence, after Kareem and even Wilkes/Nixon. From what I've seen, he manned the point when Nixon was out, and even looks more aggressive in initiating his own drives for scores during these moments, but that's a huge factor in the comparable statistics (vis a vis things like TS% and TO%). I imagine Magic's also getting more layups in transition which is also going to help something like TS%, which helps ORtg, which helps WS.

[semi-sentient]

Haven't read the articles yet, but I'll do that sometime tonight.

[Doctor MJ]

As you know, I don't think too highly of PER (I've certainly never referenced it in a basketball discussion).

That said, Bird was 4th in MVP voting and was the primary force behind a ~11 SRS turnaround in Boston (!). I'm not sure how many people thought Magic was better than Bird in May of 1980. Bird was 1st team all-NBA. Magic made neither.

It seems obvious to me from an all-around standpoint that Bird was well ahead of Magic in these early years (one SI reader in 1980 called Bird and Erving the two best forwards in NBA history). Bird's shouldering a scoring load while Magic isn't even doing what would come to make him legendary...running the offense. During one game from 1980 the commentator (Barry?) thought Bird -- not Magic -- was the best passer in the NBA, as a rookie.

I want to be clear not to prop up rookie Bird too much, nor denigrate rookie Magic too much, but I just don't see the evidence or argument for having Magic over Bird, unless someone just arbitrarily values game 6 100x more than normal (and to them I would ask why, say, Barkley didn't get a boost in 1994).

I also don't want to prop up/denigrate too much either, and I've honestly concerns about myself having done this, so I really welcome getting pwned.

Bird was certainly considered superior to Magic during their rookie season - but Magic's stock surely was raised quite a bit after the playoffs. How else does he almost (ridiculously) make the top 10 in MVP voting the next year despite the injuries?

Also, opinion at the time was certainly shaped by opportunity, and it's hard to imagine Magic having the opportunity to do more than he did. The Boston turnaround meant someone from the team would become an MVP candidate, going on the same team as Kareem meant Magic was not going to be thought of like that unless something crazy happened. I want to be careful note to take away from Bird here - the Boston turnaround was not a given, it was an incredible accomplishment which Bird was surely the biggest component of. I'm just trying to get out there that Magic's non-MVP candidate stature at the time wasn't necessarily due to anything other than uncertainty about how much he was capable of bringing without Uncle Kareem with him. Maybe Magic wasn't on that level, but going just by opinions of the time in a case like this can be misleading.

Re: scoring load etc. Go look at those stats. Bird averaged 21 ppg on 54% TS, Magic averaged 18 ppg on 60%. When I mention PER, it's not me choosing some crazy out there thing to prove a point - it's just short hand. There's just not a big difference between their stats.

[Doctor MJ]

Magic, unfortunately, wasn't playing point then. He had the luxury of being a secondary offensive presence, after Kareem and even Wilkes/Nixon. From what I've seen, he manned the point when Nixon was out, and even looks more aggressive in initiating his own drives for scores during these moments, but that's a huge factor in the comparable statistics (vis a vis things like TS% and TO%). I imagine Magic's also getting more layups in transition which is also going to help something like TS%, which helps ORtg, which helps WS.

Well, he was still racking up quite a few assists - quite a bit more than Bird who was having a big impact with his passing.

Being skeptical of Magic's TS% is another thing that makes a lot of sense for a contemporary, but then Magic proved to be ridiculously efficient his whole career, doesn't that assuage some doubts?

[ElGee]

^^^Their stats are similar -- see my reply to semi about my thoughts on that.

You're certainly making a valid point about the perception and the different opportunities...but doesn't that sort of make my point as well? Magic joined sort of a "flat" Laker team (or so the story goes) and not only added a key player on the court -- he's Magic freaking Johnson -- but an energizing force made legendary after the opening night victory hug. He had his opportunity, in LA do less, and made a mark. It just wasn't as large as Bird's. (LA jumped 2.5 in SRS, it's not like they won 65 games and Magic made waves).

[Doctor MJ]

Magic had the epic Game 6, but I'm not seeing how Kareem isn't the clear MVP overall. The cumulative numbers are deceptive because the one game boosted them up, but the final averages are not indicative of the way he played the whole series.

Hey, appreciated the longer post. I don't mean to cherry pick, but it seemed clunky to paste it all in here.

First off, I don't understand the whole "inflated by game 6" thinking. Whatever the total contribution he made is, having a disproportionate amount of it come at the most opportune time is a good thing, isn't it? I mean it would be one thing if you could legitimately claim that Magic didn't play well at all before game 6, but 17/10/9 with great efficiency is not anything to dismiss lightly - Finals MVPs have been won with LESS than that.

In general I feel like we're talking past each other. Kareem was clearly the MVP through 5 games, but I feel like you're looking at this by counting player of the game awards. If player B is a valuable sidekick for X games, he doesn't necessarily need to be the man for X more games to become the MVP of the series. How much does he need? Well there's no one answer, tons of variable, tons of perspectives. I guess I would ask you for your thoughts just in general of what it would take the sidekick to get the nod since I've already said my piece.

[ElGee]

Magic, unfortunately, wasn't playing point then. He had the luxury of being a secondary offensive presence, after Kareem and even Wilkes/Nixon. From what I've seen, he manned the point when Nixon was out, and even looks more aggressive in initiating his own drives for scores during these moments, but that's a huge factor in the comparable statistics (vis a vis things like TS% and TO%). I imagine Magic's also getting more layups in transition which is also going to help something like TS%, which helps ORtg, which helps WS.

Well, he was still racking up quite a few assists - quite a bit more than Bird who was having a big impact with his passing.

Being skeptical of Magic's TS% is another thing that makes a lot of sense for a contemporary, but then Magic proved to be ridiculously efficient his whole career, doesn't that assuage some doubts?

Even rookie Magic was a great passer, no doubt. Although when I watch film I think he was clearly better, or at the least a far more confident passer by 1984. I also always do a bit of a mental reduction for LA assist numbers after reading about all of the score-keeping inflation for assists in LA over at APBR. I have to say I've watched many old Laker games and looked at the box and thought "he had THAT many assists?"

My assessment of Magic's scoring contributions are from watching him and his team play in a handful of games every year from 80-87. His scoring repertoire clearly expanded over the years, and most noticeably his jump shot opened his scoring game a lot. By 87 -- where he scored his career high of 46 points in a game without Cap -- I think he was more n individual scoring force. I think the numbers back this up as he's doing this on a team where he's driving the offense and Nixon, Wilkes and dominant Kareem aren't there anymore.

But keep in mind from 84-87 that team would sometimes get 50 or 60 fastbreak points a game. Now, I think Magic ran the GOAT fastbreak, but I don't think it's right to be overly impressed by his scoring/efficiency because he picks up a few extra layups in those spots. Before that, with Nixon around, he's really getting points as a 3rd or 4th option in the halfcourt or in transition. That's why he has low scoring volume and high efficiency IMO.

So no, I don't really connect what he did later in his career to my interpretation of his 1980 stats. Although perhaps I am incorrect and Magic was 90% of the scorer Bird was.

One more thing I want to hammer home. When it comes to points, turnovers, TS% and assists I really value how those statistics are accrued. No. 1 options in offenses typically carry a burden that, for example, increases TO%. Their TS% decreases. Assists can vary, depending on the team structure. I'm not a huge fan of assists in general, so what I want to know is how much defensive pressure you're alleviating for teammates, and if you get 5 assists because you lob it into Kareem who hits a skyhook (useless) or if you throw an 80-foot outlet on a dime for a layup that no other player could throw (very valuable).

I mean, Cedric Maxwell and Bird have comparable stats, but no one thought, or thinks, that Max was on Bird's level as a player. I think it's because of the aforementioned reasons.

[Doctor MJ]

^^^Their stats are similar -- see my reply to semi about my thoughts on that.

You're certainly making a valid point about the perception and the different opportunities...but doesn't that sort of make my point as well? Magic joined sort of a "flat" Laker team (or so the story goes) and not only added a key player on the court -- he's Magic freaking Johnson -- but an energizing force made legendary after the opening night victory hug. He had his opportunity, in LA do less, and made a mark. It just wasn't as large as Bird's. (LA jumped 2.5 in SRS, it's not like they won 65 games and Magic made waves).

So this is getting toward the idea of - whatever players were capable of accomplishing, what did they ACTUALLY accomplish. A very valid point, but I've always tried to couple this with: If the two guys switched places, how would it look then? Now, when a guy gives up because his team is crap, I'm not sympathetic to arguments for what he could do in a better situation. However, when a guy is playing a crucial role on an NBA champion, I've got a tough time knocking him for not contributing more value if I actually think he could contribute more value if he were called upon to do so.

[Sedale Threatt]

Which is exactly what happened in Game 6. Still only one game, but looking at his overall career, inclusive of college, I have a hard time imagining that Magic wouldn't have raised his game and impact if Kareem hadn't been around.

Granted, that isn't the position he was in, so it's probably not fair to give him that kind of credit. But in this case, considering the fact that the numbers were similar, and Magic clearly proved in later seasons that he had that Alpha gene all along, I don't think it's hugely so.