#19 Highest Peak of All Time (Ewing '90 wins)

[Doctor MJ]

Re: '70 West

To me the arrival of Wilt is a big deal in how I look at what West is accomplishing. I hold Baylor's presence against West generally because of their inability to do more, and with Wilt's arrival that becomes an even bigger issue.

Really realizing how strong the '68 offense was, the change in offensive strategy, and West's crucial part in it, has me seeing that year as West's most effective year as someone making use of the talent around him by a clear margin.

I understand that West put up big stats in '70, but I also think it's pretty dang clear that the previous Lakers were not "suffering" from a lack of gaudy individual stats. I don't really have a problem with '70 being picked for West if '68 doesn't, but I can't look at '60s West and say, "Boy if only he was doing his '70 thing that would have changed everything."

One last note, I thought I saw someone say, "If '68 was so good, why didn't they win the title." This is a good point to bring up. I think it's pretty obvious that if the Lakers had won, West would have been voted in already, almost certainly before Oscar. Instead, playoffs-wise it just looks like one more near miss.

Perhaps someone could shed more light that would make this look more damning to me, but I just think that the reality is that there's a lot of noise to signal in one series. I've pointed this out before with Wilt in regards to Russell: People tend to fixate on the really, really close calls as if the ultra-closeness implies that was Wilt's best teams. I think the reality is simply that sometimes you do a little better, and other times you do a little worse. Wilt & West both were supremely unlucky that they didn't win more titles against the Celtics. As good as the Celtics were, they had some good fortune as well.

I'm not going to judge the best '60s Lakers teams in history purely based on how close they came to beating the Celtics, because I think we're well past the point of being able to discern with confidence.

[Doctor MJ]

Dude, you're the one getting so miffed when people use an APM other than RAPM, and using multi-year instead of single year. I look at Engelmann's single years, measure it in terms of standard deviations, and this is what I get:

'03 - 2.3 stdev
'04 - 2.5 stdev
'05 - 2.4 stdev
'06 - 2.4 stdev
'07 - 2.6 stdev
'08 - 2.5 stdev
'09 - 1.7 stdev
'10 - 1.5 stdev
'11 - 3.9 stdev
'12 - 3.7 stdev

Don't tell me that's not weird. Something changed dramatically in '11. Either it was Dirk becoming a fundamentally better player, or it was the team becoming a great fit for him, or we're seeing something weirder than that.

What do you think it is?

oh, since you're here, why didn't you apply the same standard to Jerry West ? wasn't his impact higher in 68 because team around him improved in terms of fit ?

As I mentioned late in the last thread, I've been talking about value vs goodness for the entire project. I still think a lot of people aren't getting where I'm coming from, but me talking like this is nothing new. I said right from the beginning that if I went just by value I'd rank people over Jordan, but that I wasn't doing that.

I'm fine with giving Dirk value credit even if I don't know exactly how his value is happening, but after watching the guy play for years, you best believe I'm going to be cautious of giving the guy a big ol' upgrade in goodness that I can't explain effectively.

With West, I feel like I have a good idea what the improvement was caused by. West existed in a time where coaches were often implementing primitive strategy. When I judge the players involved, I try to adjust for that. The '68 Lakers switched to a far more savvy offense, and boom, the West-Baylor team showed clear signs of taking a step forward with West being the lynchpin. This is telling me pretty clearly that West isn't just a particularly good chucker, or someone who can do solid distribution work if you put the ball in his hands enough, he's someone capable of truly excelling in an instinctual, flow type offense that still gets used today.

In short, the new ideas about West '68, help me understand West better because they clear up a distinct conundrum I had, Dirk's '11 metamorphosis doesn't tell me anything of the sort. Maybe they tell a savvier basketball fan than me something, but for this poster's brain, it's not so clear.

[ElGee]

I'm not sure whether to keep addressing this because it's a small point in a sea of needles, and maybe some people just won't get it (since so many processed it the first time and haven't looked back). Let's take one more swing...

if we're honestly doing this "what if he's on another team" I can't believe why you would take 68 West over 66/70. the argument that ElGee is mainly propping up is that RS doesn't matter on title contenders because they'll get to the playoffs anyway and then what you're actually doing when healthy in the postseason matters more. but where's the evidence that championship caliber teams can withstand 30 games without its best player ? why would I make a false assumption they'll just get to the playoffs easily ?

Have you not read the research??

In big, giant, bold letters...the title odds I'm giving you are based on ALL teams. -5 SRS. -3 SRS. +6 SRS. All of them. And the odds of being on a team of this quality isn't evenly distributed. The numbers INCLUDE the fact that there is a significantly smaller chance of being on a 6 SRS team than a 0 SRS team.

What you're saying here bastillon is akin to the following:

elGee: Kobe Bryant is a 40% shooter in the clutch.

bastillon: Yeah but what about the times he made that 3? Or that super hard jumper? Or was triple-teamed? Or was tired? Or played a great defense?

The 40% figure INCLUDES ALL of these possibilities. And the title odds I've presented, explained and linked to multiple times, INCLUDE ALL of these possibilities. Sometimes, a team will miss the postseason. As I've said before, in the spectrum of "teams that will win championships," teams of such quality make up ~1%.

You have a weighting issue, which doesn't make you stupid or abnormal, it makes you a human being. I don't expect people on a basketball forum to think about stuff like Bayesian probability, but I see this stuff every day, so I bring it up frequently here so people can better understand it.

Just look at your own examples. You've tried to come up with 3 extreme situations of a title team missing the PS because of missed time from the star.

Russell's Celtics -4.4
Nash's Suns =5.8
Olajuwon's Rockets -7.4

There are the average MOV's of the teams you listed based on their results without the star that you just listed. Now, if you honestly believe that this reflects the quality of these teams, (a) I think you need to dig a little deeper and (b) would that even mean they miss the PS in a given year based on 31 missed games?

Russell's Celtics w/out: 11-20 pace w/out him.
Nash's Suns w/out: 7-24 pace w/out him
Olajuwon's Rockets: 6-25 pace w/out him

Which means to qualify for the postseason in most NBA years, these teams would need to go roughly 35-16 in the other 50 games (5.7 MOV). So EVEN if you believe in such massive impact from stars based on these samples, such teams will STILL be qualifying for the PS.

You want to do thought experiments on this because it's counter-intuitive. It goes against what yo've always believed. I understand that. (Of course, this phenomenon is captured as recently as the 04 Pistons.) But here's the most basic thought-experiment that you can probably ask yourself. Would you rather

(a) have a +4 SRS player for the whole year and the PS? or
(b) have a +8 SRS player JUST for the PS?

You can take the +4 player and I'll take the +8 player and I'll win more titles than you going away. (About twice as many on average, 27% to 15% by my calculations.) Basically, you can get 10 years of John Stockton playing 100% of RS games or 10 years of Michael Jordan playing 0% of RS games -- assuming same quality PS play. The very reason why this is the case is ~50% of teams in the NBA make the postseason. That's a HUGE number. These results and this discussion is 100% a reflection of the rules of the game. If 10% of teams qualified for the PS, the numbers would be different.

Hopefully this closes this matter.

[therealbig3]

Vote: 03 McGrady

The low RAPM has been brought up before, and I think a few points should be made:

-McGrady did take a leap from 02 to 03, so that number underrates him

-It's also only using partial season data from 02

-If fit of the team is something that can elevate a superstar's impact, then it works both ways as well...I think that supporting cast was really bad

-Other non-boxscore studies say that McGrady was having superstar impact, as pointed out by drza

-Using on/off and with/without, McGrady seemed to make a huge difference


All in all, when I watch McGrady play, and I see the boxscore, and I consider the facts above, the RAPM doesn't really bother me.


EDIT: Changing my vote: 68 Jerry West

[PTB Fan]

I'm surprised that Dirk made it over West. There wasn't an argument for Dirk outside of winning a title, wheres West IMO was better in nearly everything else. I didn't have time to respond to some quoting me in the previous thread, but since that is done, let's move on.


Vote: '83 Moses Malone

"The Houston Rockets of the National Basketball Association Wednesday traded center Moses Malone to Philadelphia for seven-foot forward Caldwell Jones and a first round choice in the 1983 draft. The 76ers recently offered Malone a 13.2 million, six year contract to forego his free agent status.

The Rockets were then forced Philadelphia's offer or lose Malone, the NBA's Most Valuable Player in 1982. So, they traded him, thus acquiring a draft choice they hope to use to get either Ralph Simpson of Virginia or Pat Ewing of Georgetown.

The Cavaliers finished last among all NBA teams in 1982, and Houston general manager Ray Patterson says the "laws of averages suggests Cleveland will not finish very high." Malone is 28, Jones 32."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=V6 ... lone&hl=en

"Moses Malone, no longer burdened with being the biggest scorer on the team, had 21 points and 17 rebounds and Andrew Toney bomb the nets for 33 points Friday night as Philadelphia '76ers beat New York Knicks 104-89 in the National Basketball Association season opener for both games.

"I don't have to score 30 or 36 points a game" said Malone, who was acquired in a trade with Houston Rockets and signed a six year, $13 million contract with the '76ers. "I can go to the boards, unlike Houston where I had two and three guys on me all the time."

Malone, who averaged more than 30 points as the most valuable player in the NBA last season, actually was the third leading scorer for Philadelphia. Julius Erving scored 22 points as the 76ers ruined the debut of new Knicks coach Hubie Brown.

"Other teams will have to be more worried about us, rather than us worried about them." Malone said."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Ap ... lone&hl=en

"Moses Malone scored 25 points and had 15 rebounds and Julius Erving had 22 points last night as the Philadelphia 76ers, breaking the game open with 25-8 surge in the second quarter, beat the Indiana Pacers 121-106 in a National Basketball Association game.

The Pacers led by eight points early in the game and were still in front by seven, 37-30, before Franklin Edwards started a string of 10 straight points by Philadelphia. Indiana managed to tie the game for the final time at 41-41 with five minutes to go before half time but Erving put Philadelphia ahead to stay.

The 76ers outscored the Pacers 14-4 in the next four minutes for a 55-45 lead. Philadelphia led 57-49 at the intermission, and the Pacers came no closer than seven points in the third quarter. The 76ers streched the lead to 14 points going in the final quarter, 86-72, and Indiana came no closer than 10 points the rest of the game."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Kv ... lone&hl=en

Moses Frees Erving "To Roam The Court"

"Moses Malone leads the Philadelphia 76ers in scoring and rebounding, but his biggest contribution to the team might be the freedom he gives Julius Erving to roam.

Erving was especially appreciative of the 6-foot-10 center's presence in Philadelphia's 116-108 victory over the Suns last night in Phoenix. The 76ers' small forward scored 34 points, complementing the outside play of guard Andrew Toney and the inside work of Malone.

Toney, who hit 15-of-17 free throws, led all scorers with 34 points and Malone added 19 points and 17 rebounds.

"Even though I'm technically a small forward, you know 6-foot-6, 206 pounds, I basically play in the low post and over the last four or five years, I've earned a living in the post" Erving said. "He (Malone) has sort of given me freedom to roam the court more and not to make requirement to be under the basket all night in order for the team to play up to its potential."

Phoenix coach John MacLeod felt his team played below its potential, especially while committing seven turnovers in the last six minutes. The Suns turnovers helped Philadelphia scored five straight points for a comfortable 107-100 lead.

Larry Nance led the Suns with 21 (?) points followed by Maurice Lucas with 22 points and 12 rebounds."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=xi ... lone&hl=en

"Moses Malone scored a season high 33 points and grabbed 18 rebounds as the Philadelphia 76ers overwhelmed the Boston Celtics 122-105 Tuesday night.

The Celtics were behind by 21 points with 7:33 left, but a rally led by Kevin McHale, Gerald Henderson and Danny Ainge, who scored eight points in four minutes, cut the Sixers lead to 110-100 with 3:32 remaining.

The 76ers stopped Boston's rally on a field goal by Malone with 3:07 left and on a jumper from the left side by Maurice Cheeks with 2:40 to play."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=0E ... lone&hl=en

"Moses Malone and Julius Erving combined for 61 points as the Philadelphia 76ers blew out the Seattle Supersonics 130-117 last night and extended the National Basketball Association's longest winning streak of the season to 14 games.

The 6-foot-10 Malone scored 34 points and Erving 27, although neither played much of the final period. Malone bettered his season high of 33 points by one point. Andrew Toney added 19 for the Sixers."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=1g ... lone&hl=en

This One May Be For the Books

With Julius Erving and Moses Malone starring, the 76ers are writing a new kind of Philadelphia story

"Julius Winfield Erving II stepped out into the sunlight from his car, removed his wire-rim glasses and squinted for a moment, letting his eyes—he has recently become slightly nearsighted—adjust to the glare. Looking down, he took the hand of Julius Winfield Erving III, and they headed toward the loading docks, where meat and produce were being carried onto dozens of heavy trucks that were standing shoulder to shoulder. Dr. J, a few days away from his 33rd birthday, and 8-year-old J had nearly reached the door of Norm and Lou's Restaurant when a big rig rumbled by and bleated noisily at them with its air horn. As the truck slowly rolled off toward Pattison Ave. in South Philadelphia, the driver hit his horn again and leaned out the window. "This is your year, Doc," he yelled, nearly squashing a Toyota as he did so. "Don't disappoint us again. This year the Sixers go all the way." He didn't say, "...or else," but he might as well have.

The playoff woes that have befallen the 76ers in recent years are a frequent topic of sour discussion in Philadelphia, and as Erving sipped a cherry Coke in the diner he asked, "Why is it that with us people always dwell on the past? That's where the interest genuinely is with our team, in talking about our past [failures] instead of what we've accomplished. We've taken so much crap that's unwarranted."

It's nevertheless true that three times in the past six years—1977, 1980 and 1982—Philadelphia has made it to the NBA's championship series only to be beaten in six games each time. The Sixers' regular-season record since 1977-78 has been the best in the league (327-136), and yet year after year the big prize has eluded them. "Somewhere along the line something always broke down," says Los Angeles Coach Pat Riley, whose Lakers handed the Sixers their most recent disappointment in the championship finals.

By last week, however, the question wasn't whether the 76ers were past tense but whether they would be future perfect. By defeating Denver by 21 points, Houston by 29 and New York by 15—in the process holding the Nuggets and Knicks each to just 38 points in the first half—Philadelphia ran its record through Sunday to 46-7, far and away the best in the league this season, and one that puts them on a collision course with history. No NBA team has ever won 70 games during the regular season, and the 76ers have an excellent shot at doing just that. The best regular-season record was achieved by the 1971-72 Lakers (who were also 46-7 after 53 games). They won 33 in a row and finished 69-13, surpassing the previous best record, 68-13, of the 1966-67 Sixers. Both teams went on to win championships.

Although these 76ers would have to play at a seemingly torrid .828 pace in their remaining 29 games to finish with 70 victories, that would actually represent a slight decline from Philly's present .868 clip. In the unlikely event that the Sixers collapse and become just another .500 team for the rest of the season, they would still finish with 60 wins, two more than they had last year. Moreover, the Sixers have an almost unheard-of 22-5 road record, including an astounding 11-1 against Western Conference teams. They've beaten the champion Lakers twice and have yet to lose two straight games; no team has ever gone through an entire season without losing two in a row. And the Celtics, in other years the 76ers' chief tormentors in the Atlantic Division, lay seven games back, a diminishing speck in Philadelphia's wake.

Surely the 76ers would not be so dominant this season had they not beaten Boston for the Eastern Conference championship in '82, after blowing a 3-1 lead in that series. Philly lost Game 5 at Boston and was embarrassed in the second half of Game 6 at home, where they were roundly booed. "I think the seventh game in Boston [which the 76ers won 120-106] helped us," reserve Guard Clint Richardson says in colossal understatement. "After the sixth, practically everybody had given up on us, and we had nowhere to go but to each other. It was a bad feeling and it hurt us, but it made the guys who were involved in that situation a lot closer."

In the championship series against Los Angeles, it was readily evident that although brotherhood is a virtue, a big man who can rebound is even better. Sixers owner Harold Katz decided to go after Houston's league MVP center, Moses Malone, who was a free agent, and when he got Malone for the tidy sum of $13.2 million for six years, the 76ers had the dominating center they'd lacked since Wilt Chamberlain was traded in 1968.

Malone, who led the league in rebounding last year (14.7 a game) and was second in scoring (31.1 points a game), quickly proved that he could also make the quick outlet pass necessary to trigger the Sixers' running game, get out and run on the break himself and close down the middle defensively with an occasional blocked shot. And, oh, how he can go to the boards. Last season Philadelphia's so-called Twin Towers combination of Darryl Dawkins and Caldwell Jones had a total of 232 offensive rebounds. This year Malone got his 232nd in Philadelphia's 40th game, on Jan. 23 in Milwaukee, and he leads the league in rebounding for the third consecutive season, with an average at week's end of 15.7 per game. "I've said all along that the big thing about him is his consistency," says Philly Coach Billy Cunningham. "He doesn't have any off nights." True enough. Malone has been limited to fewer than 10 rebounds only once this year; he had six in 28 minutes in the Sixers' 120-102 victory over Cleveland on Nov. 26.

"When you lose in the finals," Riley says, "it takes a tremendous toll. You lose a little bit of your basketball life. They had a lot of guys who had tasted nothing but the pain, and that's bad. Getting Moses was the best move they could have made. It rejuvenated them. They went out and said, 'With Moses, we're going to win it this year.' You can look at them and see they're more committed."

"When we got Moses our minds changed right away," says Guard Maurice Cheeks, who is having the finest season of an exemplary career as a playmaker, despite the fact that his assist average has dropped from 8.4 last season to 7.4 through Sunday. "Having him here was an important thing for us psychologically, just as important as what he brings us on the floor. Every time we walk on the court now, we think we're going to win."


As a practical matter, Malone's presence has enabled the Sixers to transform what had been a good running game into an exceptional one. "With Moses we anticipate we're going to get every rebound," Cheeks says. "So we start the break higher. And when we get a step on most teams, we're gone."

The instigator of all this, Malone, who came out of Petersburg (Va.) High in 1974 right into the ABA, has proved that if anyone is worth $2.2 million a year, it's he. He has averaged 37.5 minutes of playing time a game—he went 56 minutes in a double-overtime victory over Boston on Nov. 6—has massaged the boards and has been a timely scorer. When Cunningham has called on him to do so, Malone has also played power forward, giving new definition to that term while lending the Sixers a little versatility underneath. "It's never easy for Moses," says Moses. "Moses got to get out there every night and work hard."

Malone isn't interested in winning 70 games and then getting smoked in the playoffs. "All we got to do now is play ball and not let up," he says. "Can't take no prisoners. If we win the whole thing, that's a great team. I don't care nothing about breaking no records. Huh!"

One of Malone's greatest admirers is Irv Kosloff, who owned the team from the time of its transfer from Syracuse, in 1963, until 1976 and remains close to the 76er scene. "Moses reminds me a lot of Wilt when we won the title in 1967," Kosloff says. "Wilt hadn't won a title, and he worked hard for it. Moses hasn't won one either, and he works so hard that he makes the other players feel guilty if they don't put out as much effort."

Not everyone was convinced that acquiring Malone was such a bright idea. "I think some of the players questioned some of what we did in the off-season," Cunningham says. "But by December we had developed a clear personality and our confidence started growing. I think beating some of the better teams helped convince them." Erving, for one, had adopted a "wait and see" attitude when veterans like Dawkins, Caldwell Jones, Lionel Hollins, Mike Bantom and Steve Mix (the Doc's road roommate) were either traded or not signed to make Malone's enormous contract feasible. The Sixers started the season with four less costly rookies, more than any other team in the league carried, and gambled that the lack of depth on the bench wouldn't hurt. It hasn't. Cunningham even went so far as to put 26-year-old rookie Marc Iavaroni at the starting power forward position, despite the fact that Iavaroni had been bounced from three pro camps after his graduation from Virginia in 1978. He had spent the past four seasons playing in Italy and serving as Virginia's graduate assistant coach, which earned him playing time against Ralph Sampson in scrimmages. When Cunningham gave Iavaroni a chance, he made the most of it, diligently screening the opposition's rebounding forward off the boards so Malone could work in comparative peace.

Iavaroni did have some adjustments to make, most of them mental. On a trip to Atlanta, for instance, Cunningham told the players that the day-of-the-game shootaround would be 10 to 11. Iavaroni showed up at 10 minutes till 11 o'clock.

Besides the youth movement, another concession to Malone's contract is that the 76ers now get around out of town in rental cars, where once they traveled on more costly buses. Iavaroni was charged with the care of Erving's bags one night in San Diego, and when the Doctor was detained by reporters after the game, he instructed Iavaroni to "leave my luggage with the bellman." But instead of driving directly to Los Angeles, which was the Sixers' next stop, Iavaroni drove his car back to the San Diego hotel the team had already checked out of and gave Erving's luggage to the bellman there. The bags were eventually sent to L.A.

Obviously, the Sixers could not depend on Iavaroni to carry all the heavy load at forward, so last week they moved a step closer to the championship by filling one roster vacancy with veteran Forward Reggie Johnson, a 6'9", 205-pounder whom they purchased from Kansas City for a reported $150,000, and by trading rookie Forward Russ Schoene (and a No. 1 draft pick this year and a No. 2 in '84) to Indiana for backup Center Clemon Johnson (and a No. 3 pick in 1984). "I was ecstatic with the first part of the season," Cunningham said following the deals, "but we wanted to make ourselves stronger." Katz was overjoyed to get the two players, although both could be free agents at the end of the season. "I know Billy doesn't like to hear this kind of talk," Katz said, "but I believe this is the best team we've ever had in Philly, maybe the best team ever."

Katz has another reason to be pleased. The Sixers are doing boffo business. Though they have been an artistic success since Erving's arrival in 1976, they've been a financial failure. Attendance in 1980-81 had fallen to 11,448 a game, and though it increased to 12,362 last season, the 76ers still lost money. So the team raised ticket prices—a hefty 45% on the average. Although one can still get a seat for $6 (up from $5), the top ticket went from $11 to $16 and, taking a cue from the Lakers, the Sixers moved press row from the sidelines to behind one basket and installed a VIP row at $50 a seat. Nonetheless, as a result of the Sixers' superlative record, attendance has soared 25%, to a league-leading average of 15,229 a game. What's more, ticket revenue has zoomed by 72%.

But success has added a new problem. "We're expected to win every night," Assistant General Manager John Nash says. "Some people say there are only a couple of teams that can provide us with competition, so why come out? But that's a marketing problem."

If the Sixers prove to be the best team ever, they will have earned it. "The aggressiveness we have is consistent every night," says substitute Forward Bobby Jones. "I've never seen a team that had it like this team does. Every night our opponents know what they're going to face for 48 minutes, and we don't let up."

"I think they're a great team, but I think they've been great," said Doug Moe, coach of the Nuggets, after their 116-95 trouncing by Philly last week. "I don't believe that because they haven't won a championship they're failures. I happen to think the regular season is more meaningful than the playoffs. Hell, anybody can get up for the playoffs, but the regular season is a grind. If they win 70, yeah, they're a great team."

Philadelphia probably would have been a better team this season even without the addition of Malone, if for no other reason than the emergence of third-year pro Andrew Toney, formerly just a spectacular shooter, as a complete player. Toney was a substitute most of his first two seasons in Philadelphia; he became a regular in the playoffs last spring when Hollins was injured and he's still starting. Through Sunday he was scoring 19.6 points a game, third on the team behind Malone (24.2) and Erving (22.6), while playing sound defense. He also has learned to hit the open man even when he has a shot he thinks he can make, which is virtually all the time. "He sees things out on the court that other players just don't see," says Erving, who has become something of a mentor to Toney. "Andrew has such strong wrists that he can throw the pass off the dribble, sideways, behind his head, any way. He came into the league with the shot, but Billy stayed on him and saw to it that Andrew was not a one-dimensional player."

Erving awaits the stretch run with keen interest. "I think we've proved we're a good team, potentially a great one," Erving says. "We're probably hungrier than the Lakers or the Celtics, and that helps. The last time I experienced a championship was in 1976 [with the ABA Nets], and seven seasons is a long drought. Moses hasn't won one ever. Bobby hasn't. Maurice. Andrew. We haven't had the ultimate success, and we've got guys this year who really want it.

"The pain that was suffered, the feeling of having backs turned on us, that's still with this team. But the positive side is carried with us, too. We have the scars, but we also have the glue. I don't feel incomplete or inadequate in any way because I haven't won an NBA championship. I don't lie awake nights and think about it. I know I've given my best to the public, and the rest is really out of my hands. I can accept that."

This year the Doc may not have to accept anything but a championship trophy. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

"Moses Malone dropped in two free throws with 5 seconds left in overtime to lead the Philadelphia 76ers to a 104-101 National Basketball Association victory over the Milwaukee Bucks.

Milwaukee's Marques Johnson had tied the score at 93 on a 13-foot jump shot with 2:34 left in the fourth quarter, and neither team could muster another point in regulation. The win kept the 76ers atop the NBA's Atlantic Division with a 58-10 record. Philadelphia has now won eight of the last nine games, and 24 in a row at home, one short of a club record.

Milwaukee, in first place in the Central Division with a 45-25 record, saw a two game winning snapped.

Malone, who finished with a game high 25 points on his 28th birthday, was fouled intentionally by Bob Lanier before making the winning free throws. Milwaukee then inbounded the ball to Charlie Criss, who attempted a three point field goal but hit the backboard.

Field goals by Reggie Jackson and Maurice Cheeks gave Philadelphia a 102-97 lead with 58 seconds left in the overtime. Marques Johnson, who led the Bucks with 24 points, hit a three pointer to bring the Bucks within 102-100.

Andrew Toney added 21 and Cheeks 16 for the 76ers. The score was tied 18 times in regulation, including a 21-21 deadlock at the end of the first period. Philadelphia led 44-43 at the half and 74-71 after three quarters."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=te ... lone&hl=en

"Moses Malone scored 26 points, including eight in the fourth quarter, as the Philadelphia 76ers held off Cleveland rally to beat the Cavaliers 96-84 in a National Basketball Association game Sunday night.

The victory kept alive the 76ers' chance to tie the NBA record for most victories in a season, 69, set in a 1971-72 season by the Lakers. To match the record, Philadelphia, 61-13, must win its remaining eight games.

The 76ers led 71-61 entering the final period. The Cavaliers, however, got eight points from Cliff Robinson to pull within six points three times in the quarter.

Cleveland twice blew chances to pull within four points -- once when Robinson missed a dunk with eight minutes left and again four minutes later when Bruce Flowers missed a jumper.

Philadelphia then scored the next six points, including four by Franklin Edwards, to clinch the victory. The 76ers', who led 51-39 at halftime, got 14 points from Maurice Cheeks. Bobby Jones added 13.

Fourteen of Malone's points came from the free throw line. Robinson scored 20 points for the Cavaliers, who have lost last 16 games with Philadelphia. Geoff Huston had 18 and Phil Hubbard added 16."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=BK ... lone&hl=en




Game 1 ECSF:

"Moses Malone, who spent the past two weeks aching knees, returned to the line up Sunday and scored 38 points to lift the Philadelphia 76ers to a 112-102 victory over the New York Knicks in the opener of the their NBA Eastern Conference semifinal series.

The second game of the best of seven series will be played Wednesday night in Philadelphia.

Malone missed the final week of the regular season with tendinitis of the right knee and had to walk off practice floor last Thursday when his knee became inflamed. But he did not look hurt to the Knicks, shooting 15-21 from the field and pulling down 17 rebounds.

Malone scored 14 points in the second quarter to spark the 76ers to a 61-55 lead at halftime. Then, with Philadelphia clinging into a two point lead early in the third quarter, Malone scored two baskets in a row of 13 points that gave the Sixers a 79-64 lead with 5:25 left in the period and New York never got closer than nine in the final minute."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Ef ... icks&hl=en

"In between, Moses Malone played 38 minutes of brilliant, hard basketball, more than any of his co-workers. He scored 38 points, matching his high for the season. He muscled 17 rebounds, had four assists, shot 15-23 from the field, 8-9 from the foul line and helped the 76ers to blow out the Knicks, 112-102 in the first game of their playoff showdown."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Mx ... icks&hl=en



Game 2

"Moses Malone and Maurice Cheeks ignited a third quarter spurt that rallied Philadelphia from a 20 point deficit Wednesday night and led the 76ers to a 98-91 victory over the New York Knicks and 2-0 advantage in their NBA playoff series.

The best-of-seven Eastern Conference semifinal match up moves to New York for Games 3 and 4 Saturday and Sunday.

The 76ers trailed 59-41 at halftime and 63-43 early in the third quarter before holding the Knicks to one foul shot in a 22-1 spurt over 9:45 span to take a 65-64 lead. Malone scored eight of his game high 30 points in the rally and Cheeks, who finished with 24, added six points and two steals."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=vO ... icks&hl=en

"Center Moses Malone and guard Maurice Cheeks were the architects of the 76ers comeback. Malone scored 30 points, grabbed 17 rebounds, made four steals and blocked three shots while Cheeks collected 26 points, handed out six assists and made four steals."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=dY ... icks&hl=en





Game 3

"A New York double team of Julius Erving set up a 14-foot, game winning basket Saturday by Philadelphia's Franklin Edwards, a little known guard back up guard on the 76ers team with four all-stars.

"It wasn't designed for me" said Edwards, whose basket with two seconds left gave the 76ers a 107-105 National Basketball Association victory over the Knicks and a 3-0 lead in their best of seven series. "We wanted to isolate Doc one on one. But when they went with to double team Doc, I got the ball and started to go to the basket. I felt time was running shortso I put the ball up. I thought it was a good shot.

"This is the biggest thrill of my life". Philadelphia needs one more victory to advance to the Eastern Conference finals against the winner of the Boston-Milwaukee series in which the Bucks lead, 2-0. Game 4 of the 76ers-Knick series will be here today.

Edwards said after he got the ball he also tried to find Moses Malone, but the Knicks' defense was sagging on him. Edwards shared the hero's mantle with Malone and Maurice Cheeks, who scored 28 and 24 respectively, and combined for Philadelphia's 16 before Edward's game winner."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=aU ... icks&hl=en




Game 4

"It's over now, but if you listen closely, you probably still can hear the echo of Moses Malone's thunderclap bouncing off the buildings of Manhattan's West Side.

Malone, tearing through the desperate fourth quarter defense of the New York Knicks, destroyed them one on five yesterday, leading the injury riddled 76ers to a 105-102 and a 4-0 sweep of their NBA Eastern Conference semifinal playoff series.

He scored 29 points. He brought down 14 rebounds. But that doesn't tell the whole tale of the devastation the Sixers' center wrecked in front of 15,457 fans at Madison Squad Garden. In the fourth quarter, he was better than any numbers could indicate--certainly better than New York could encounter.

"Moses", the Knicks' Ernie Grunfeld said, almost whispering "is the difference in the Sixers."

New York Coach Hubbie Brown agreed.

"You must congratulate the winners, especially the awesome display of Moses Malone. He's such a disruptive force. I thought our centers played him as well as anyone could, but he was able to get shots off during total duress. I have never seen him hit that many shots before."

As for Malone, he viewed his performance stoically. "I figured the only way to help the team was to go to the defensive rebounds and get things going." Get things going? He not only got things going on the boards, he did it in just about every department.

"We wanted to give him the opportunity to be the dominant factor for us" said Julius Erving (18 points, seven rebounds, two blocked shots). "That didn't happen in the first half. Our ace in the hole is the man in the middle, and that's who we wanted to go to."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=4H ... icks&hl=en


For the series, Moses Malone averaged 31.3 PPG, 15.5 RPG, 2 APG, 57.5% FG vs the Knickerbockers in a four game sweep where he was the dominant force behind Philly's success.

Big Mo and Little Mo Need One 'Mo

Moses Malone and Maurice Cheeks led the Philadelphia 76ers to a commanding 3-1 lead advantage in the NBA eastern finals


Not long after the Philadelphia 76ers' 104-96 victory over the Milwaukee Bucks in Game 3 of the NBA Eastern Conference finals last Saturday, Sixer Coach Billy Cunningham, owner Harold Katz and Assistant General Manager John Nash were dining at The Clock, a Milwaukee restaurant, when they had to suffer through an impromptu monologue from a Bucks fan who had spent too much time drowning his sorrows.

" Wilt Chamberlain would've eaten Moses Malone alive," the man began. "Mo wouldn't score a point against Wilt." Cunningham kept his cool, perhaps secure in the knowledge that even if Wilt were suited up for the Bucks and even if he did shut down Malone, he wouldn't have been able to handle Julius Erving, Andrew Toney, Maurice Cheeks, Bobby Jones and the rest of this marvelous team.

Such is the overall beauty of the 76ers that the Bucks could win but one of the series' first four games, 100-94 last Sunday in Game 4, which prevented the Sixers from sweeping them as they had swept the New York Knicks in the conference semis. And these Bucks are no pushovers. In the Eastern semis they had given the broom to the Boston Celtics. "We were the ones making the big plays against Boston; now the Sixers are doing it to us," said Milwaukee Forward Junior Bridgeman after Game 3. "We have no excuses. We did what we wanted to do, but how can you defend against every player or every play?"

You can't, which is the main reason why Philadelphia had won 50 of its first 57 regular-season games en route to a league-best 65-17 record. But despite, or perhaps because of, that success—and because the 76ers have failed so often in the past to win the league title—there has been exceedingly heavy pressure on this Philly team to win it all. "We're not going to win games by 20 points now like we did in the regular season. We don't expect to," said Cunningham before Game 2. "In a way it's been nicer to win like this because each of our playoff wins has been different, and we've always been able to do whatever's necessary."

The man who perhaps feels it is most necessary to win this year's playoffs is Cunningham, who, despite a 395-173 career record in his six seasons, hasn't seemed to glean any real joy from his work. "There's been a lot of pressure on him," Guard Clint Richardson says. "You would think it would be fun coaching this team, but in a way it's not, because we have to win the title sometime.

"All along people have said that you really don't have to coach this team. But a very talented bunch like this can be poison if it's not coached, because everyone would just go off in his own direction and the team would get messed up. Cunningham hasn't gotten his due yet, but since his early years he's gotten much better. The big thing is he has more confidence in us; he'll stay with us a little longer. Before he lacked patience."

That patience was evident during Game 3. Rookie Forward Marc Iavaroni was yanked by Cunningham with 5:59 remaining in the third quarter after two consecutive turnovers leading to two Milwaukee scores. "The way Marc was playing then, I didn't think we'd see him the rest of the playoffs," one Sixer said later. Yet in less than five minutes Cunningham returned Iavaroni to the floor.

Such confidence-building moves have no doubt been helpful, but one shouldn't forget that the Sixers' march through the playoffs was preordained by Moses. As the Sixers trained for their opening round against New York, Cunningham asked Malone how he saw the upcoming playoffs. Malone rumbled, "Fo', fo' and fo'," as in three four-game sweeps on the way to Philadelphia's first title since 1967, when Cunningham was the sixth man and Chamberlain was The Man. But ever since Katz plucked Malone from Houston last September and gave him $13.2 million over six years, he has been The Man. A two-time MVP who has led the league in rebounding the past three years, Malone ended the power shortage that had caused the Sixers to fizzle out in the 1980 and '82 NBA finals against the Lakers.

This season Malone quickly defused criticism that he couldn't play the Sixers' running game. "It's Julius' team; I'm just here to work hard," he said before play began. But it soon became apparent that Malone was Philly's most important player. Indeed, when Malone sat out the last four regular-season games with tendinitis of the right knee, the Sixers won only one of them.

Then, during the Sixers' week off before the start of postseason play, Malone developed an inflamed left knee, causing much trepidation. But he exploded for 38 points and 17 rebounds in the opener against the Knicks and, apart from the first game against the Bucks—when Bob Lanier and a sagging Buck defense held Malone to 14 points—he has been a force that no one has been able to deal with.

t was largely because of Malone's presence that Milwaukee Coach Don Nelson said early last week, "The way I look at it, if we were better than them, we'd have won 65 games and we would have the home-court advantage."

Milwaukee's offense all year had been generated by the dazzling duo of Guard/Forward Sidney Moncrief and Forward Marques Johnson. In Game 1 in Philadelphia, Johnson had 30 points, getting 12 of them consecutively at the end of the first half to help cut a 16-point Philly lead to two. It took a spectacular steal by Bobby Jones of an inbounds pass and his blind pass to Richardson, who dunked for his sixth point in overtime, to clinch Philly's 111-109 victory.

Despite the loss, the Bucks had reason to be pleased going into Game 2. They had controlled Malone and come close to winning despite a seven-point performance by Moncrief. Milwaukee committed 25 turnovers in the opener, but before Game 2 Nelson said he had taken care of that problem, too. "I told all my players at practice today that I have a size 14 shoe and that I will plant it up their you-know-wheres if they don't take care of the ball better," Nelson said. "Of course, some of their rears are so big that my foot might disappear."

Instead, it was the Milwaukee offense that disappeared—just when it had in Game 1—during the final few minutes of Philadelphia's 87-81 victory. And again Jones made the key defensive play, blocking a layup attempt by Brian Winters that resulted in an Erving slam that effectively iced the game.

"They've tried to slow the game down, tried to bully us. I don't know what else they can do, but they have to do something, don't they?" Richardson asked after the second Philly win. Indeed, a victory in Game 3 would be crucial to Milwaukee. No team in NBA history has ever come back from a 3-0 deficit to win a best-of-seven series.

Clearly Erving, who had scored just six points in Game 2 and two points in the second half of Game 1—following a 17-point first half—was due to break out as the series shifted to Milwaukee. To be sure, he had missed one practice with a sore left knee. Said Marques Johnson, "He has to be hurting. He's not playing like he usually does on offense. When he's at his best he just explodes on you."

It was Milwaukee that did the exploding in Game 3. Bridgeman, who had been made a starter in Game 2 to get some scoring going, but shot a ghastly 1 for 12, got 16 points in the first half as Milwaukee took a 48-45 lead.

The lead had reached seven, 78-71, with 9:57 to play in the game, when Cunningham leaped off the bench and called time, presumably to berate the 76ers. Before he could begin, Cheeks, who was out of the game at the time, gave Cunningham a slap on the rear, as if to say, "Don't worry, things are going to be all right."

Cheeks helped by going in and scoring seven consecutive points to tie the game at 78 with 8:24 to play. Then Erving, who would finish with 26 points, took over, scoring 11 points in the last eight minutes to ensure victory and erase any doubts about his health.

But it was Cheeks—the most consistent Philadelphian during the postseason, according to Cunningham—who hadn't let the game slip away. As in years past, Little Mo has elevated his game during the playoffs. His 18.8-point average through Sunday was six higher than his regular-season pace.

"In the playoffs there's a tendency for people to do things they're not capable of," Cheeks says. "Doc and Moses can take over a game. I have to do it by getting a steal and trying to pick up the tempo a bit. You know, work for it."

Despite the Sixers' overwhelming talent. Cheeks still tries to leave nothing to chance. During last season's playoffs he kept a rubber band around his wrist—just as Chamberlain used to—because the Sixers were on a hot streak. This year the good luck charm is the trace of a beard growing beneath his chin, another Wilt trademark.

Hold on a mo', Little Mo. With Big Mo and you and the Doctor and Jones and...who needs Wilt?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

[ardee]

Edit:

Vote: 1968 Jerry West

____________________________________________

Again, for the reasons I've stated in previous threads. '68 West was a great year, I admit, but it can't be first choice considering the injuries.

Again, if '68 is the only choice among others, I will change my vote.

Looking mostly at Nash, Barkley and Moses after this.

And people, how is there yet not even a whisper of Bernard King?

[bastillon]

In big, giant, bold letters...the title odds I'm giving you are based on ALL teams. -5 SRS. -3 SRS. +6 SRS. All of them. And the odds of being on a team of this quality isn't evenly distributed. The numbers INCLUDE the fact that there is a significantly smaller chance of being on a 6 SRS team than a 0 SRS team.

you're missing the point. I'm saying that missing games doesn't really matter on RS juggernauts but there are are some teams where missing your star crushes your postseason chances. obviously your research is mostly based on the teams that don't need those contributions but I'm saying you need to examine the borderline championship teams more carefully because that's where it's starting to matter.

I believe you posted that there's 29% title odds as +6.5 playing half a season vs 28% of +6 playing the whole year ? give me some direct evidence (of the actual teams) that make your theory true.

(a) have a +4 SRS player for the whole year and the PS? or
(b) have a +8 SRS player JUST for the PS?

why use this as an example when West is at best marginally better in 68 and very likely he's worse than during 66/70 ? I'm not using missed games as my main argument, it's a tie-breaker type of stuff. you should know this by now. if this was some Jordan vs Stockton debate, I would be on the other side of the fence.

also from what I understand, you're trying to measure West's PS value based on his RS performance by in/out ? makes very little sense to me. you can make a case that West 66/70 was more valuable in the PS than in 68. easily.

As I mentioned late in the last thread, I've been talking about value vs goodness for the entire project. I still think a lot of people aren't getting where I'm coming from, but me talking like this is nothing new. I said right from the beginning that if I went just by value I'd rank people over Jordan, but that I wasn't doing that.

imagine that many people in this project are doing exactly the same thing and we arrive at different conclusions. the problem isn't your philosophical approach, it's the very essence of your argument.

I'm fine with giving Dirk value credit even if I don't know exactly how his value is happening, but after watching the guy play for years, you best believe I'm going to be cautious of giving the guy a big ol' upgrade in goodness that I can't explain effectively.

well then apply the same standard to West! see ? I'm not questioning your approach of goodness vs value (nobody is really), I'm questioning your logic. it doesn't make sense.

With West, I feel like I have a good idea what the improvement was caused by. West existed in a time where coaches were often implementing primitive strategy. When I judge the players involved, I try to adjust for that. The '68 Lakers switched to a far more savvy offense, and boom, the West-Baylor team showed clear signs of taking a step forward with West being the lynchpin. This is telling me pretty clearly that West isn't just a particularly good chucker, or someone who can do solid distribution work if you put the ball in his hands enough, he's someone capable of truly excelling in an instinctual, flow type offense that still gets used today.

first of all, let me just say that "instinctual, flow type offense" is NOT being used today in the NBA. it's mostly NCAA stuff. very few teams play princeton/triangle. mostly teams let individuals dominate and play like millions of pick and rolls (that was definitely not the case in the 60s). that's just wrong to say that this type of offense is being used as anything other than an exception. but that's not so important...

what is important, however, is your illogical thought process right here. Dirk's SD RAPM rose to higher levels and you're assuming this is because of front office/coaching staff doing a better job of surrounding him with good pieces. it's not like Dirk was a mediocre impact player, he has always been among leaders of the impact stats. now West is being put in a different offensive system and suddenly he's being championed as if he objectively improved his "goodness" ? what sense does that make ?

so let me get this straight. we know West's history in impact stats throughout his career. we know 68 is a pretty major outlier. we know sample is pretty small compared to his other seasons. we know Lakers did not play up to their RS expectations in the PS. to me it seems like a variance stuff. but now you're saying that West actually was a fundamentally better player than in 66 or 70 ? based on what ? that his impact was higher due to playing in a system that suits him better ? (this is your thought process, I don't consider Lakers 68 a +8 SRS team)

it doesn't make sense. first you make an introduction about value vs goodness and how goodness is more important to you. then you're confusing the two and using "value" from 68 as an argument that his goodness was better that year. even thought it came back right where it had been before the year later.

the way I see it is this:
I'm fine with giving West value credit even if I don't know exactly how his value is happening, but after watching the guy play for years, you best believe I'm going to be cautious of giving the guy a big ol' upgrade in goodness that I can't explain effectively.

so again, double standards.

[bastillon]

I'm surprised that Dirk made it over West. There wasn't an argument for Dirk outside of winning a title, wheres West IMO was better in nearly everything else. I didn't have time to respond to some quoting me in the previous thread, but since that is done, let's move on.

that's a pretty outrageous statement for someone who's reading these threads. way to bail yourself out of responding. "I didn't have the time, you were wrong, you're still wrong, but it doesn't matter anymore, let's move on". the best part is that none of the Dirk proponents said anything about winning a title. so right there - either you're trolling or you just didn't read the threads. the arguments were health, better impact stats, better postseason performance, better defense. nobody said anything about winning a title.

bunch of re-posted articles

yes, we all read those accounts. they provide very little substance to be honest. Sixers were an elite team that desperately needed a rebounding center because their centers outright sucked at rebounding. Moses was a very good fit on that team and his value was quite big that year. but that doesn't make him a contender. he's still a fundamentally flawed player, a guy whose offensive style severely limits his defense and someone who you can't run your offense through. you (or none of the other Moses voters for that matter) never responded to those arguments. you never explained why Dr J's presence had a bigger impact on those Sixers in 83. as I said before, Moses is being pushed now because of the combo of ppg/rpg/wins, only this very shallow analysis is going to get it done in his case, as it's nearly impossible for him to get voted in after in-depth look. the deeper you look, the more flawed he is as a player.

[colts18]

The issue of missing time in the RS matters only in that it weakens a teams position (HCA, matchup) in the PS. But if the team is clicking on all cylinders, it's not nearly as important as the point-differential advantage they have over an opponent. Make sense?

When you point to the PS here, you have to think about

(1) Were the Celtics better than THEIR RS SRS indicated?
(2) The Lakers were 8-1 with +8.8 MOV in their first two rounds...is this a BAD thing?
(3) How easy is it lose a series if you are actually better than the opponent, just based on variance?

As I said before, those MOV for the playoffs are meaningless because they were against teams the equivalent of the Golden State warriors. Those teams are even worse than the average 8th seed these days. No one here would prop a player up based on a 1st round series against a weak 8th seed.


HCA is pretty big even when the team is worse. Since 1985, in the 2nd/CF/Finals, the team with HCA but a worse SRS is 18-16 record (average -0.82 SRS worse). So despite being a worse team, they are winning the series more than expected. Based on SRS difference we might expect them to win the series around 40% of the time, but they won 53% due to HCA.

[bastillon]

not to mention it could also result in playing more teams your equal and that's even more concerning. take 80s for a good example, how many title would the Lakers win if they faced the equivalent of Celtics/Sixers in the West and then had to go to the finals and play the team of this caliber once again. do you know that of the big three teams of that time (Lakers/Sixers/Celtics) nobody beat the other two to win the title ? when you're facing one team against which you have 60% probability of winning it's pretty good but if you're facing two teams like that, your chances drop pretty drastically.

I still think PS performance should be the basis of everything but RS record is definitely a tie-breaker if the players are close.

[drza]

This thread I'm looking primarily at West, TMac 03, Karl, and Barkley. Perhaps Paul and Nash as well. Would also like to hear more about the New York boys (Ewing and King). Maybe even Pippen on the horizon. Not sure what to do with Moses, but in the end I likely won't have to worry about it because he'll probably be voted in before I would have decided to vote for him anyway. And is there any push or case to be made for one of Petit's seasons? Some general thoughts:

*As I wrote last thread, my default feeling is that in '03 TMac was giving you everything that West gives you, but in a more physically gifted body that allowed a higher upside. My hesitance in putting that in stone is the demonstrated huge impact of West, with the somewhat conflicting impact stats of TMac. On/off and regulary APM were high on TMAC, but RAPM was lower, so I'll have to spend some more time there to decide what I believe the data is telling me. But coming in, I currently default to TMac being higher.

*Karl and Barkley are right on the horizon for me. I probably tend to lean towards Karl slightly more, because I do think he gives a significant defensive presence at the big man slots which is important to me. But I was more of a Barkley fan, thought Barkley was better at the time, and he was certainly more dynamic and fun to watch, so it's close. Again the decision that I need to make is how much to put into the available impact stats we have on Barkley, which don't paint him in as dominant of a light impact-wise as his numbers would have suggested. And on Karl's side I have to decide how much the playoff drop in scoring efficiency bothers me, how much I think was a function of how his team was built, and whether he contributed in enough other ways that he could still be big despite the scoring drop.

*Paul and Nash are the point guard elephants, in the room, especially considering that three of the previous four that I mentioned are under consideration (by me) almost purely for their offense...and the strong argument can be made that point guards can have the biggest offensive impact, and that Nash/Paul might be the best offensive players still left on the board. But if I had a single-season draft, would I really draft one of them to make my best team over the best of, for example, Karl Malone? I'm not sure of that. And that's something I'll need to get straight in my mind before I vote.

*Someone in a recent thread (maybe Fatal?) made a strong post about Ewing and his huge 2-way impact before the knee injury, including an excellent playoff run. If that case is made right, I could be convinced to vote Ewing as soon as this spot, because he's legitimately a dominant defensive anchor (arguably the best that isn't currently voted in) so if the case could be made that he's an offensive centerpiece as well he could go to the top of my list.

*Would love to see a case made for King vs West or TMac, as those are the current standards for the high-scoring wing. Can anyone argue that King was better?

*Pippen probably won't get traction anytime soon on here, but I do think his combination of big-man-anchor-defensive impact and point-guard-offensive-impact make him arguably one of the highest peaking players still on the board as well.

[C-izMe]

I can't see Malone near this high (Moses). I've never seen him on this level at all and I would rate Dwight (for example) higher and he has had NO discussion at all yet.

[colts18]

Some data on seeding and its importance. This is from 84 (start of 16 team playoff) to 2012. I prorated the wins in the lockout seasons.

Avg wins:
Champion: 60.7
loser: 56.5

SRS:
champion: 6.76 (same exact SRS as 2011 Heat)
loser: 5.36

Avg seed:
winner: 1.66
loser: 1.97

NBA finalists (58):
1 seeds: 32 (55%)
2 seeds: 15 (26%)
1 or 2 seeds: 45 (81%)
3 seeds: 7 (12%)
2 4 seeds, 1 6 seed, 1 8 seed: 4 total (6.9%)

So only 7.1% of NBA finalists were 4 seeds or worse. 1 of them (Mavs) actually had the #2 record in the conference but was a 4 seed due to screwy seeding system. They had HCA in the CF vs. the #2 seed (Suns), so there seeding wasn't indicative of the path they took to the finals.

NBA champions (29):
1 seeds: 18 (62%)
2 seeds: 6 (21%)
1 or 2 seed: 24 (83%)
3 seeds: 4 (14%)
6 seed 1 (3.4%)

So only 1 team in the modern era won a title lower than a 3 seed. In fact 5 out of 6 NBA champions are 1 or 2 seeds. That shows how important seeding is in the NBA. I don't know how anyone can say seeding or HCA doesn't matter when 1 seeds overwhelmingly dominate in the finals.

[MisterWestside]

All in all, when I watch McGrady play, and I see the boxscore, and I consider the facts above, the RAPM doesn't really bother me.

Although from the B-R.com on-off data McGrady doesn't impress (+3). But your post was on point.

The team CONSTRUCTED AROUND T-Mac was Here are the top-minute getters McGrady worked with:

-an old Darrell Armstrong
-used to be "Reign Man" but now "Dunkin Donuts" Shawn Kemp
-inconsistent journeyman Jacque Vaughn
-"bigman" Andrew DeClercq
-they managed to give 1K minutes to Jarryl Sasser, who was out of the league after '03!
-sophomore Mike Miller
-nice shooter but low-usage F Pat Garitty

Not saying this is the Bobcats, but come on...people want to punish T-Mac for playing with this cast?

[bastillon]

guys I'm looking at:
-West 70
-Ewing 90
-Pippen 94/95
-Nash 05/07
-Paul 08

-West, defensively he's a gambler who can't expand a lot of energy because of his nature (superstar guard) and players like that are never impactful defenders. offensively I like that he controlled the offense more in the 70s but his performance seemed to suffer against top defenses (Celtics, Knicks) and western conference was pathetic at the time so he got plenty of opportunities to padd his stats against weaker teams. I'd like to see how he performed against the best. portability is not an issue for me, even though he didn't seem to fit well with Wilt. I think it's Wilt's fault more than anything, Wilt's the guy with history of underwhelming impact and suspect statpadding. if you're going with 68 version health is also a concern for me. I don't normally pay that much attention to RS but missing 30 games is significant enough to be a tie-breaker. it makes you play harder competition in the playoffs, likely without HCA in the later rounds (when you're facing teams your equal) and it disrupts lineup continuity, I don't think he'd fit right in on the fly on every team like he did on 68 Lakers and there's a problem if his team can't adjust to his presence.

-Ewing, even though fatal9 argued well for his offense, it's still pretty suspect to me. he's more efficient in the 90 but it's not like you want to run the offense through him other than couple dump offs every quarter. Ewing is not a good passer and that's a huge concern for me. I know he played extremely well vs Celtics but I just don't trust him offensively. defensively he's really a monster but I would like to know how much Pat Rileys scheme influenced those Knicks defensively. I don't think it gets talked about enough.

-Pippen, huge impact and portability but again I'd like to know how much Jackson's schemes influenced that team on both ends. main concern is go to scoring obv and general drop off in the playoffs vs tough teams. he's just not a great offensive player vs top defenses IMO and that really works against him, especially compared to guys who actually lift their games in the playoffs.

-Nash, offensive monster, great at pretty much everything offensively, one of the best shoot/dribble/pass combos in history (when you have that combo, you're deadly). defense is not as much of a concern because superstar guards have minimal impact on the defensive end anyway, and there's no data proving he's a big liability on defense. offensive portability is theretically a concern but if he plays with the ball in his hands good things happen so I don't really see any reason to make him play without it like Porter did.

-CP, fatal's post should probably be re-posted. at the time stats were capturing him as the highest impact player in the league IIRC. his inexperience is a huge issue for me though, I remember all too well what happened to him in that G7 vs Spurs when he clearly couldn't handle the pressure. I remember Jannergo Pargo actually being Hornets go-to guy in that game. home team won every game of the series up until that point and Hornets were playing G7 @ home. I think he'd be better today in that regard, even though he doesn't play with the same athleticism anymore.

[bastillon]

All in all, when I watch McGrady play, and I see the boxscore, and I consider the facts above, the RAPM doesn't really bother me.

Although from the B-R.com on-off data McGrady doesn't impress (+3). But your post was on point.

The team CONSTRUCTED AROUND T-Mac was Here are the top-minute getters McGrady worked with:

-an old Darrell Armstrong
-used to be "Reign Man" but now "Dunkin Donuts" Shawn Kemp
-inconsistent journeyman Jacque Vaughn
-"bigman" Andrew DeClercq
-they managed to give 1K minutes to Jarryl Sasser, who was out of the league after '03!
-sophomore Mike Miller
-nice shooter but low-usage F Pat Garitty

Not saying this is the Bobcats, but come on...people want to punish T-Mac for playing with this cast?

but if they were so poor why weren't they falling apart without TMac ? I actually see a pretty good offensive cast for unipolar offense, floor is really spread out and TMac can do whatever he wants to inside. it really seems weird that they only produced a top10 offense playing in the freakin east 2003. Garnett actually anchored a top5 offense that year with: Hudson, Peeler, Gill, Rasho, Joe Smith and half season of Wally. why couldn't TMac at least do the same with similar if not better supporting cast ? I'm not gonna vote for McGrady on the basis of his defense so I'll have to believe he was an ELITE offensive player to put him over a guy like Nash or Paul. I don't think he was as impactful as either one of them.

also, as much as I love TMac's heroic effort in the Detroit series, there's no reason to be blown out in 3 straight games in that manner. Detroit outscored them by 53 points in the last 3 games with TMac on the floor (131 mins sample). that's -19.4 scoring margin per 48 mins.

[MisterWestside]

but if they were so poor why weren't they falling apart without TMac ? I actually see a pretty good offensive cast for unipolar offense, floor is really spread out and TMac can do whatever he wants to inside.

Fair question to ask. But you could be wide-open for days because of the defensive attention the star attracts -- if you can't shoot, you can't shoot. This cast was inept where offensive skills is concerned.

[bastillon]

*Karl and Barkley are right on the horizon for me. I probably tend to lean towards Karl slightly more, because I do think he gives a significant defensive presence at the big man slots which is important to me. But I was more of a Barkley fan, thought Barkley was better at the time, and he was certainly more dynamic and fun to watch, so it's close. Again the decision that I need to make is how much to put into the available impact stats we have on Barkley, which don't paint him in as dominant of a light impact-wise as his numbers would have suggested. And on Karl's side I have to decide how much the playoff drop in scoring efficiency bothers me, how much I think was a function of how his team was built, and whether he contributed in enough other ways that he could still be big despite the scoring drop.

I'll just re-post some of the stuff on Malones and Barkley:

I feel pretty strongly about voting peak Ewing over peak Moses in this project (leaning towards '93 Ewing btw unless someone can convince me the '90 version was as impactful defensively). I'd prefer to build around Ewing, where you set your defense up pretty well and also get solid offense, vs Moses having more offense but a shaky defensive record. While Ewing having an uglier offensive skillset than his numbers worries me, Moses' offensive game isn't exactly pretty either, so it's hard to knock him for it. I think Moses is better offensively just... not by enough of a margin

Btw I dug up a post from last year when I looked at the DRB ranks of Moses' teams, because I was thinking heavily at the time about how big men who excel at getting offensive rebounds more than defensive ones, may be using their high skill of "tracking" the ball on the glass on the defensive end, thus chasing after rebounds instead of boxing out. Moses of course has one of the highest ORB to DRB ratios of all players in history, such as in 1982 having 47% of his rebounds on the offensive glass, 53% DRB. A guy I compared him to as on the opposite end of ORB/DRB ratio, Dirk, had 10% of his rebounds offensive in 2011, 90% defensive, and his team managed to have a lot of good defensive rebounding years. Here are Moses' team rebounding stats:

Moses
Rockets 77 - 5th
Rockets 78 - 15/22
Rockets 79 - 9/22
Rockets - 80 - 21/22
Rockets 81 - 11/23
Rockets 82 - 17/23
Sixers 83 - 13/23
Sixers 84 - 18/23
Sixers 85 - 15/23
Sixers 86 - 17/23 - This is a Barkley/Moses frontcourt year. WTF?
Bullets 87 - 22/23
Bullets 88 - 21/23
Hawks 89 - 22/25
Hawks 90 - 26/27
Hawks 91 - 7/27
Bucks 92 - 23/27

That's rough. I also looked at what happened to the team's after his moves - Rockets move from 17th in DRB in 82 to 18th in 83, Sixers move from 22nd DRB in 82 to 13th DRB in 83. So that's not a bad impact, though he was also replacing Daryl Dawkins, who has probably the worst size of human being to rebounding ratio ever. The Sixers are 17th in both 86 and 87, the Bullets are 20th in 86 and 22nd in 87. The Hawks go from 13th in 88 to 22nd in 89, the Bullets go from 21st in 88 to 12th in 89. The Hawks go from 7th in 91 to 8th in 92, the Bucks go from 21st in 91 to 23rd in 92. So the overall changing from team to team doesn't support Moses being an impact defensive rebounder.

Against Barkley, or the way he was utilized?

You see, I know that players are the ones playing the games, but we can't act as if coaching/coaching strategy/systems don't exist. They do, and they matter.

See, the issue is that you are implying the coaches would have just used Barkley wrong, while I say that the coaches used Barkley in order to achieve maximum team success. A player like Barkley, with his skillset and height, makes it really difficult to find fitting teammates to build a really, really good team. You need an incredible skilled big who can defend not only in the post, but is also capable of stepping out to compensate for Barkley's mistakes. Now what? The 76ers did not fall apart without Barkley, neither in 1987 nor in 1991. And when we look at the 1993 76ers, we see that they played -2.38 SRS ball for the first 40 games, just to collapse with internal trouble, coaching changes, etc. to -7.98 SRS for the last 42 games. Now, coaching matters, no doubt about that, but do you really think it would have been easy to just use different offensive and defensive schemes for the coaches in order to make a better team? Or isn't it the case that Barkley himself was the cause for the coaches to put him into that post position, because it would have been worse, if Barkley played a different position?

I see a similar thing with Moses Malone. Imagine Erving wouldn't have had the versatility to play differently with less touches, how would that have effected the 1983 76ers? The team had to change in order to accommodate Moses Malone. That's why we haven't seen such big impact by Moses Malone despite his massive numbers. When the clearly less productive Erving in 1983 was missing, the team lost a lot of it strength. As for 1983, I can see a couple of players replacing Moses Malone and the 76ers wouldn't lose much of their strength, while it would be tougher to replace Erving. If we would have the 1983 pbp data, I wouldn't be surprised, if we find that Erving was some sort of +6 to +7 player per 100 possessions, while Moses Malone was rather a +3 to +4 player. Obviously, it is important to have production and efficiency for a team, and Moses Malone was able to provide a lot of that production. I have him with +7.01 SPM during the playoffs, which is most certainly an impressive value. But that is hardly a value others, not selected players haven't achieved, while we actually saw a bigger impact by them.

I think in 1983 we just see a 76ers team, which is a good fit for Moses Malone, because they are unselfish with high basketball IQ, a team with Erving as their most impactful player. Moses Malone could play to his strength and was able to collect the boxscore numbers. And I agree with Doc MJ's assessement as well, we don't hear people raving about Malone's skillset, transcendent abilities, high basketball IQ, great decision making, whatsoever, people liking Moses Malone most times bring up raw ppg and rpg numbers, that is all. That he turned it over quite often even though he didn't pass often, is somewhat ignored, that Malone had limitations defensively seems to be ignored (heck, there were some people recently claiming he was a defensive anchor, which means they really had no clue how Malone even played). I don't think that Moses Malone had a great peak in the context of a 5on5 game, were his skill level and playing abilities would have allowed to build a great team with a great variety of teammates.

I see Malone and Barkley as players, who were able to produce and be efficient, which means they had for sure positive impact on the game, but even if we want to assume that their teammates for a big part were just not good enough, we have seen other players pushing similar weak casts to much more than those two players. And some of those players are still not voted in.

I actually tend to lean towards mysticbb's stance regarding Barkley, to be honest. Big box score numbers...but production like that is really not that useful when it's not leading to impact. The whole point is to make your team better.

I mean, yeah, but why is this always on the player? You can be a great player and be used incorrectly in the team context or not be in the ideal team environment (as a Heat fan, I would think that LBJ didn't forget how to play basketball on the offensive end between 2010 when he "impacted" his teams and when he joined the squad). Do the words "Jim Lyham" and "offensive genius"/expert" occupy the same sentence when you type your posts?

Ok but we have multiple instances of Barkley with a strong supporting cast, and not doing THAT great with them. I mean, when a player has different, but talented, supporting casts throughout his career, and the result isn't anything super amazing (or at least, isn't any better than what we've seen from other players, like Dirk or Nash), why does he HAVE to be voted soon?

Let's look at the offenses he's been a part of throughout his career, starting in 86 (when he became a 20+ ppg player):

86: +1.4
87: +0.0
88: +0.8
89: +5.2
90: +5.4
91: +0.0
92: +0.1
93: +5.3
94: +5.4
95: +6.2
96: +2.7
97: +2.1
98: +2.7
99: +3.2

So let's analyze some of these teams. From 86-88, he's a part of very average offenses, despite playing with still very productive versions of Moses, Dr. J, Mo Cheeks, and a plethora of double-digit scorers. The offenses are pretty elite in 89 and 90 finally, but again, he has quite a few very good scorers on his team. Impressive stuff, but nothing that some of the other players haven't done to a greater degree. The offenses once again become quite mediocre in 91 and 92...he does miss 15 games in 91, and using ElGee's SIO, we see that the Sixers were -1.2 without him, and +0.0 with him.

It's during 93-95 when his team offenses once again explode to elite levels, while playing next to KJ, who was injury-prone during this time.

KJ misses 33 games in 93, and the Suns were +4.5 without him, and +8.2 with him (+3.7). Also keep in mind that they had Dan Majerle on the team as well.

Both Barkley and KJ miss a bunch of games in 94, much of the same ones. The Suns played with KJ and without Barkley in 4 games (so very small sample size). In those games, the Suns had a 113.4 ORating vs an average 107.6 DRating (+5.8)...technically better than with Barkley. Like I said, very small sample size, and that wouldn't have held up for a whole season, but those Suns were clearly more than just Barkley, and they could sustain elite offense without him...kind of like they did with a healthy KJ in 97.

In 95, the Suns played 8 games with KJ and without Barkley, and in those games, they had a 110.2 ORating vs an average DRating of 107.9 (+2.3). Again, a very talented supporting cast that could certainly play strong offense with Barkley on the bench.

Personally, Barkley to me is someone whose box score stats overrate how good he was...he played with different supporting casts that were all quite strong, and the offenses were never truly historic (at least in the regular season, haven't checked the playoffs), like we've seen with players like Dirk or Nash, who aren't as impressive by the box score.

I think at some point, when a player is playing with different talent and the results just aren't at the level that's expected, it's time to start looking at the player (Barkley has poor portability imo) and to stop assuming that the coaches or the teammates just don't allow him to play an ideal role.

To be clear, Barkley did lead some really strong offenses, but at this level of peaks, Dirk and Nash have led stronger offenses on a routine basis. Furthermore, this doesn't even get into the fact that Barkley was worse as a defensive piece than either of them.

I see some of Barkley's awesome offense but poor defense arguments to be similar to some of Nash's. However, this issue at the 4 is very large when compared to the defense that is needed by the pg. PG's effect on the defense has been shown to be small when compared to that of the front-court.

And that's where the issue with Barkley basically comes from. His weak defense while occupying the inside position makes it tough to find the fitting frontcourt partners for him. Essentially, you need a bigger guy who can defend, but is still skilled enough to step out of the zone and make things happen. Ilgauskas would have been a pretty good complementary player next to Barkley, but those kind of players just aren't available that often.
It is a limitation and a clear problem, which is why it shouldn't be such a big surprise to not see as big of a difference between Barkley in and Barkley out. But it seems as if that kind of reasoning is offensive to some people and thus it should be ignored specifically for Barkley.

That obviously doesn't mean that Barkley sucks, especially under the light that we expect an average player to have 0 as in/out or on/off, in order to have someone "sucking" we would need to see a huge negative value. But that seems to be not that easy to grasp for some people around here.

I think the issue in this discussion is related to the same issue in Iverson discussion, while it is not the same group of people, there are still some people giving Iverson more credit, because he is smaller than an average player (even guard). As if being small and accumulate stats is making the stats more valuable. The same thing I see with Barkley, were his build is actually used to prop him up, making it seem as if a rebound by a 6'6'' PF would be worth more than the rebound by a 6'10'' PF. It is not, and while the 6'10'' can take rebounds away from his teammates, a 6'6'' can do the same. Matter of fact is that some of Barkley's production and efficiency advantage over his replacement players was compensated by the 76ers, that puts his numbers into a context. It is essentially similar to Moses Malone or Kevin Love today, and be assured, if Kevin Love would have played on the Spurs in 2012, while Spurs then would go on to win the championship, we would see a myriad of people pushing Love 2012 for a much higher peak level than he really had. In the end, Love could be the same +3.5 player he was last season, but people would likely be convinced that Love was the most valuable player in 2012, because of ppg and rpg.

Moses, Barkley - I'd like some evidence that they had all time high impact on their teams. both were poor defenders (major flaw for bigs) and greatest offensive rebounders ever while offensive rebounding is probably the least important stat of all (the weakest correlation to scoring margin). I loved Mufasa's breakdown of Moses rebounding, how little he impacted his team's DRB%. why didn't Moses and Barkley run through the league in 1986 ? both were really in their physical primes. they were overrated, that's why. why else would they post 16/23 DRB% as a team if Moses and Barkley were such great rebounders ? IMO Dr J was just as impactful or even moreso in 1983, the same case can be made for 90s KJ (people constantly overlook how good he was in the postseason, he had several explosions in the postseason).

Malone - also overrated to some extent by his raw boxscore stats. particularly because of his scoring. his ppg numbers REALLLYYYY overstated how good he was as a scorer. he had like couple reliable moves, his jumpshot was pretty good (though inconsistent at times) and he could draw tons of FTs and pass very well. but his 1 on 1 scoring skills were lacking and this is why he regressed so often in the playoffs (that + John Stockton taking a lesser role resulting in Malone carrying too much). his consistently lower playoff scoring averages and efficiency were somewhat similar to D-Rob. he's another guy whose scoring numbers overstated his abilities and that was exposed in the playoffs. IMO Kevin McHale was a better scorer in terms of abilities than Karl Malone, D-Rob OR Moses. I don't like fundamentally flawed players.

Dirk is a guy whose scoring skills are far better than his ppg averages and that is why his offensive impact is so incredibly big. I just don't see any of the guys previously mentioned carrying so much of a load on that offensively depleted team (11 Mavs). this is also why Dirk improved in the playoffs consistently and delivered when he was asked to do more and more. Malones or D-Rob simply can't do that.

Dirk is better than several players already in and I actually think he's close to KG/Walton/Dr J ballpark.

I actually think Moses is a solid post defender. He had the strength to keep guys away from getting good position, this really bothered KAJ at times, and in general doesn't give up anything too easy one on one.

But why was he a bad defender?

- Moses was relentless on the offensive boards, which sounds like a good thing, but at a certain point, this also kept him from getting back on defense. This is something that's pretty clear to me after watching his games.
- He was consistently the most turnover prone center in NBA history. He had 8 (!) NBA seasons where he averaged more than 3.5 TO/game (by far more than any other C). Sometimes these were turnovers which don't hurt you defensively (like offensive fouls) but a lot of times it was him forcing plays which ended up creating very easy fast break points for the opponent. He also did not handle double teams well, forced a lot of bad shots which again resulted in leak outs for the opponent. So his offensive game fundamentally hurts his teams on defense.
- He doesn't protect the basket well, his team defense can be lackadaisical (possibly tied to the enormous amount of energy he spent on the offensive boards) and he doesn't cover for his teammates like a good defensive center should. The Sixers overcame this because of how dominant the defensive combination of Dr. J, Cheeks and Toney/Jones was (those guys were on some GOAT level **** with their defensive activity on the perimeter).

With all these factors combined, I'm trying to figure out if team defense wise he's at the level of a liability or if he's just mediocre.

And count me as someone who doesn't think it's at all obvious who the best player on the '83 Sixers was, which doesn't say a lot of good about Moses considering Doc was past his prime by then. People need to really get over Moses' raw stats because you're never going to assess him as a player properly if you let yourself get enamored with them (we saw this with Wilt in the past here). He's a flawed player on both sides of the ball whose game produces better numbers than it does impact.

Here is what I responded to:

I'd love to bring Karl Malone into the discussion as well, as I tried to do a thread or two ago, but I'm still not in a position to do it myself and so far no one else has picked up the gauntlet except for ElGee briefly. Barkley at least generated some conversation last thread, but so far nothing on Karl Malone

Malone - also overrated to some extent by his raw boxscore stats. particularly because of his scoring. his ppg numbers REALLLYYYY overstated how good he was as a scorer. he had like couple reliable moves, his jumpshot was pretty good (though inconsistent at times) and he could draw tons of FTs and pass very well. but his 1 on 1 scoring skills were lacking and this is why he regressed so often in the playoffs (that + John Stockton taking a lesser role resulting in Malone carrying too much). his consistently lower playoff scoring averages and efficiency were somewhat similar to D-Rob. he's another guy whose scoring numbers overstated his abilities and that was exposed in the playoffs. IMO Kevin McHale was a better scorer in terms of abilities than Karl Malone, D-Rob OR Moses. I don't like fundamentally flawed players.

Bastillon says "his 1 on 1 scoring skills were lacking." Now, if you think of Malone as having the historical level stats I posted, then it seems my point reinforces bastillon's. I was assuming (falsely?) that the PS numbers were being referenced, or at least were part of the reference, since this is all I heard about re: Malone's scoring these days. (This is why I say he was actually understated.) I cited the RS numbers to give people context for the PS numbers -- I definitely should have been clearer there. Let me expound.

What I'm saying is that this is not a 25 ppg 55% TS guy taking a dip bc of this skillset down to 20/50% without any team changes. Instead, the RS numbers need to be remembered in interpreting what happened to Utah in the PS. This is a 27 ppg/58% guy changing to 27 ppg/53%...but there are also circumstantial changes to consider.

I've written about the change in role in the PS, largely IMO bc Stockton was incapable of certain things for the heart of Malone's career. The rest of the team's turnovers plummet http://www.backpicks.com/2012/02/29/was ... -pressure/ (an indication they are "doing" less), for example, as Malone does more. (I'd call it unipolar, but I have a lot of respect for the Jazz offensive sets.) As a result, we see Malone in more iso situations, absolutely.

With jordan, Shaq and Hakeem as the only other better statistical PS scorers of the period (or perhaps Reggie Miller?)...

I've written about this before... http://www.backpicks.com/2012/02/07/joh ... -failures/ Most players will drop no more than 1.5% in TS% more than we "expect" in the PS based on their opponent strength. Malone drops more than any other notable star since the merger, at 3.9%.

You know who else has an enormous drop? His teammate, Stockton (-3.4%). Chicken, meet egg. But if you believe that Stockton was helping Malone get better shots, only Stockton's own game limits the pressure he can put on a PS defense, then that shifts some of the role to Malone (which bastillon was saying). That we still see 27 ppg scoring and excellent offensive results (remember Malone was a fantastic passer) means it doesn't make much sense to say his scoring was "REALLLYYYY overstated."

The 94 Jazz had "second options" of Horny and Stock...but really Stock was a PG who wasn't going to take over the game scoring and he didn't have the same scoring threat we see today from guys like Paul or Nash (heck it wasn't close to the same as Penny.) Horny was a spacer/shooter, and a good one, and his arrival boosted the Jazz offense. So what you get is:

94 Malone 27 ppg 53% TS (Hornacek 15 ppg/59%, Stockton 14/52%)
95 Malone 30 ppg 55% TS (Hornacek 12/60%, Stockton 18/55%)
96 Malone 27 ppg 50% TS (Hornacek 18/65%, Stockton 12/60%)
97 Malone 26 ppg 50% TS (Hornacek 15/57%, Stockton 16/63%)
98 Malone 26 ppg 53% TS (Hornacek 11/53%, Stockton 11/57%)

Malone's A 27 ppg, 53% TSer who was carrying an enormous load. The Jazz postseason offenses in those years were:

Utah PS offenses
94 +4.5
95 +8.5
96 +6.7
97 +6.5
98 +0.1 (and that was +4.3 in the WC PS before the debacle in Chi)

So you're left with a scorer, who is the primary scorer, who is scoring at a rate that only the all-time best eclipse, and his team's ORtg changes correlate strongly (0.77 from 92-98) with his individual ORtg changes. Here are the players I consider to be better offensive post players and their PS numbers*:

Hakeem (93-95): 27/57%
Shaq (00-02): 30/56%
Kareem (77-80): 32/62%
Dirk (09-11): 27/62%
Barkley (89-93): 26/58%

And here's the crux of the point: If Malone could maintain his volume/efficiency (27/58%) despite the changes in what his teammates were doing in playoff series...he'd actually be raising his game significantly. Significantly! Heck, 27/56% would be raising his game a lot because that would simply be the "expected" TS% against those defenses. This is, in a statistical sense, what Hakeem did (and why he was voted in at No. 5). If Malone was doing this, he'd quite likely have multiple championship rings and we'd have voted him in a long time ago.

So I guess bastillon put me in an"overrated/underrated" subjective booth. If you think of Malone as a 30/60% guy, then that does really overstate him as an iso scorer. If you think of him as a 27/53% guy on a good team (or for some, a really good team), that understates him as a scorer. Who cares about the semantics here though, when the important point is that Malone is an excellent scorer who is just a cut below the all-timers.

*Malone 92-98 is 27/53% (103.9 opp DRtg). He's +1.6% aTS% gainst his opponent's, and when we incorporate how good of a passer he was, there just simply aren't any bigs left who are better offensively. Other bigs in their prime as PS scorers:

Duncan 23/55% v 103.7 DRtg teams
Moses 23/55% v 103.2 DRtg teams
Ewing 23/55% v 105.1 DRtg teams
Robinson 23/55% v 106.5 DRtg teams

This would me my assessment of Malone's scoring, I don't think "scoring without Stockton" is as much of an issue as other things...

- Amazing at getting the ball in traffic and either finishing or drawing fouls due to his strength. He had some of the best hands ever, doesn't matter who is throwing him the ball or what system he is in, he will always find a way to score off other players unless he plays on a team with literally zero ball movement.
- His ability to go to the right spots on the floor is a SKILL. The problem is, that sort of scoring can't be relied upon against a good set defense trying to make a stop. It's a good way to tack on the points when the defense lets up or makes mistakes however.
- In an iso situation, pretty much the only shot prime Malone was shooting was a 12-15 foot fallaway over a defender. He could mix it up over the course of a game, give you a little jump hook sometimes, face you up and drive, but 9 times out of 10, if you give him the ball and get out of his way, it's going to be that fallaway. I hate that shot, well not the shot itself but how many times he shot it. That sort of somewhat one dimensional iso-scoring is the reason he couldn't come through as a scorer in the playoffs at the rate you'd expect from someone with his averages. It's why when his jumper is on, he'll look unstoppable, shoot like 15/26 in one game but be 9/24 and 6/19 in the next two while taking the exact same shots. His consistency as an iso-scorer is just not where you'd like it to be.
- Stockton was responsible for a large number of late 80s/early 90s Malone's points. When people exagerrate and say Stockton spoon fed Malone, this is the version they are referring to. Malone became less and less dependent on Stockton as the years rolled by.
- As the 90s went on, his game progressed to being more finesse based (he could still make midrange shots when he was young, but didn't shoot them as often as later on), he also became a better one on one scorer (but again...I hate that fallaway) and with added experience he of course read defenses better and became a really good passer as well (over the shoulder no look pass being his trademark, great and hitting cutters and outlet passing).
- His conditioning was epic, he was probably the best forward ever at beating his man down the floor for an easy fastbreak basket. This again, is something teams can cut down when they adjust for it in the playoffs.
- PnR beast, in his younger days he attacked more off the PnR, in the MVP years he popped for the jumper.
- In general he got more easy baskets than any 25+ ppg guy I've consistently seen. Combination of playing with the best PG at delivering the ball, the offensive system Utah ran which creates lots of easy baskets off cuts and backscreens and to Malone's credit, him having a scorer's nose for where to be on the floor. Those easy baskets aren't quite as readily avaliable in the playoffs with better defensive teams so that contributes to decline in his playoff scoring as well.

This is why I don't see Malone's drop off in the playoffs as "choking", but as a drop off that can be naturally expected from him given his skills as a scorer. He was better at scoring on paper than a guy like Duncan...but he was better at things that are more likely to be taken away in the playoffs. That is why he's overrated as a scorer.

Another quick visual anecdote:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bsuLF0DqzU[/youtube]

Great performance but this shows exactly what people already criticize about Malone's game. Too many jumpers! In a game he was "on", he's going to look amazing, but he didn't mix it up in these years, his iso-scoring is too dependent on them. The thing that bothers me is that I believe he had the talent and body to score in so many more different ways, but he just fell in love with that jumper. It's a non-attacking shot which bails out defenses, it kept him from utilizing all of his skills, it was an inefficient shot against playoff defenses in isolation and it's why he couldn't pace his scoring like truly great scorers who know they can get theirs in a variety of ways whenever they want at any point of the game.

I already know Karl can shoot a jumper for me on command, but your jumper can't be on every game (especially if you're not a pure shooter) so what then can Malone do for me when I need him to score on isos? It's not an efficient shot in isos especially when it's your only real "go to" move. In the game before that one he shot 6/21, in the game after he shot 7/21. Too many jumpers and the result is very erratic iso-scoring where he looks like a world beater one night and hopeless the next night.

[bastillon]

but if they were so poor why weren't they falling apart without TMac ? I actually see a pretty good offensive cast for unipolar offense, floor is really spread out and TMac can do whatever he wants to inside.

Fair question to ask. But you could be wide-open for days because of the defensive attention the star attracts -- if you can't shoot, you can't shoot. This cast was inept where offensive skills is concerned.

they weren't inept shooters. just no.

[MisterWestside]

they weren't inept shooters. just no.

I don't just mean jumpshooters. T-Mac was a willing passer and could set up others if he drew doubles or drove into the lane, and he did that alot. Your teammates need to capitalize, or the coach needs to put more sets in to facilitate team play.