Retro Player of the Year 1984-85 UPDATE — Magic Johnson

[One_and_Done]

As others picked up on, the point is the PS success

Oh I get it. Now that others have mentioned the playoffs you have decided that's what you meant. Gotcha.

PS success looks terrible if the Jazz had three top 5 worthy players

Oh I get it. Now you've gone from "still couldn't get anywhere" to they're "terrible".

I only said Eaton should be considered for POY in 1984-85. But let's go with your supposition. These 7 seasons Utah made the playoffs every year. Only 5 other teams made the playoffs those same 7 seasons. The Jazz won 24 playoff games. Only 5 other teams won more. 18 other teams that made the playoffs during that time won less games. Were those teams worse than terrible?

Just out of curiosity, were you alive in the 80s and early 90s? Ever see a Utah Jazz playoff game during that time (1985-86 to 1991-92)? Have you actually ever seen Mark Eaton play?

You know what? I think you don't even know who Mark Eaton was, and haven't even seen him play. That's why you feel the need to belittle and minimize one of the greatest defensive players the game has ever seen.

If you think I'm wrong, then let's discuss Eaton's consideration for POY in 1984-85.

This is a point I had made literally dozens of times on these boards, including in threads you've posted in. The idea I wasn't making that point originally is clearly offbase (though I have made the point the Jazz underachieved in the RS if they had multiple MVP candidates before also).

You talk about how other teams did, but did those other teams have 3 supposed top 5 players? What team with three top 5 players constantly failed to go deep in the playoffs? Not just in that era, but in NBA history?

[OhayoKD]

As others picked up on, the point is the PS success

Oh I get it. Now that others have mentioned the playoffs you have decided that's what you meant. Gotcha.

PS success looks terrible if the Jazz had three top 5 worthy players

Oh I get it. Now you've gone from "still couldn't get anywhere" to they're "terrible".

Emphasis mine. If you require further explanation as for why your reply isn't coherent, I can elaborate further.

I only said Eaton should be considered for POY in 1984-85. But let's go with your supposition. These 7 seasons Utah made the playoffs every year. Only 5 other teams made the playoffs those same 7 seasons. The Jazz won 24 playoff games. Only 5 other teams won more. 18 other teams that made the playoffs during that time won less games. Were those teams worse than terrible?

Being the 6th best team is a drastic underperformance relative to what is typical of teams with three top 10 players(let alone top 5). It would be more effective to frame it as "the Utah Jazz were a top 6 team on the strength of an Eaton anchored defense", but such a framing makes high placements for Malone and/or Stockton more questionable.

Just out of curiosity, were you alive in the 80s and early 90s? Ever see a Utah Jazz playoff game during that time (1985-86 to 1991-92)? Have you actually ever seen Mark Eaton play?

You know what? I think you don't even know who Mark Eaton was, and haven't even seen him play. That's why you feel the need to belittle and minimize one of the greatest defensive players the game has ever seen.

If you think I'm wrong, then let's discuss Eaton's consideration for POY in 1984-85.

Well OandD is crushing you on this topic thus far. Accordingly, OandD never watching him play(lets say that's true) doesn't do much besides indicate that your eyetest is garbage and your opinions shouldn't be taken seriously.

[One_and_Done]

I was about to add that while the PS failures are the real killer, the Jazz underachieved in the RS regardless if they had three top 5 type players, which is a point I've made before in relation to Stockton & Malone (never mind if you toss in a third supposed top 5 player).

[kcktiny]

You talk about how other teams did, but did those other teams have 3 supposed top 5 players? What team with three top 5 players constantly failed to go deep in the playoffs? Not just in that era, but in NBA history?

If you want your questions answered, trying answering those questions posed to you. That's how this works.

Being the 6th best team is a drastic underperformance relative to what is typical three top 5 players

I never said Eaton was a top 5 player from 1985-86 to 1991-92. Only that he should be considered for POY in 1984-85. Try reading this thread.

But let's go with your statement. Why don't you tell us what is typical of a team with 3 top 5 players? And:

Not just in that era, but in NBA history?

Being the 6th best team is a drastic underperformance relative to what is typical of teams with three top 10 players(let alone top 5).

Fine. Why don't you explain this to all of us so we are on the same page. Why don't you tell us what is typical of teams with 3 top 10 players, and:

Not just in that era, but in NBA history?

It would be more effective to frame it as "the Utah Jazz were a top 6 team on the strength of an Eaton anchored defense"

That's how it has been framed. Read this thread.

Yet OandD is crushing you on this topic thus far.

I am crushed.

Accordingly, OandD never watching him play(lets say its true) doesn't do much besides indicate that your eyestest is garbage and your opinions shouldn't be taken seriously.

Were you alive and watching the Utah Jazz and Mark Eaton in the mid-to-late 80s and early 90s? Let me guess.

Was or was not Eaton DPOY in 1984-85? Also 1988-89? Was he or was he not also all-defensive team 5 straight seasons 1984-85 to 1988-89 (3 times 1st team)?

Those awards were voted on by NBA coaches, broadcasters, sportwriters. Was their collective eye test garbage too, and do you feel their opinions shouldn't be taken seriously either?

I was about to add that while the PS failures are the real killer, the Jazz underachieved in the RS regardless if they had three top 5 type players

Then why don't you enlighten us as to how teams with 3 top 5 players achieved, and:

Not just in that era, but in NBA history?

[One_and_Done]

As others picked up on, the point is the PS success

Oh I get it. Now that others have mentioned the playoffs you have decided that's what you meant. Gotcha.

PS success looks terrible if the Jazz had three top 5 worthy players

Oh I get it. Now you've gone from "still couldn't get anywhere" to they're "terrible".

I only said Eaton should be considered for POY in 1984-85. But let's go with your supposition. These 7 seasons Utah made the playoffs every year. Only 5 other teams made the playoffs those same 7 seasons. The Jazz won 24 playoff games. Only 5 other teams won more. 18 other teams that made the playoffs during that time won less games. Were those teams worse than terrible?

Just out of curiosity, were you alive in the 80s and early 90s? Ever see a Utah Jazz playoff game during that time (1985-86 to 1991-92)? Have you actually ever seen Mark Eaton play?

You know what? I think you don't even know who Mark Eaton was, and haven't even seen him play. That's why you feel the need to belittle and minimize one of the greatest defensive players the game has ever seen.

If you think I'm wrong, then let's discuss Eaton's consideration for POY in 1984-85.

I'm going to call you out on this last comment particularly: the Thunder got better every year from 10-12. They won 50, 55, and 58

Wow throwing down the gauntlet. Ok.

In the span of 1985-86 to 1991-92 the Jazz had a 3 year stretch of 55, 54, and 55 wins. That's 1 more win than that Thunder 3 year run. Who cares how old they were? That means nothing.

Did the Thunder win a title? Still couldn't get anywhere? Terrible? Hey, sounds just like you.

The Jazz too got better pretty much every year 1985-86 to 1991-92. So what? How you going to spin this?

Well was Stockton just as good at 22-23 as he was later in his career? If not then I think the OKC cores' ages are highly relevant. It is also disingenuous for you to claim they Jazz had 'one more win' when their win% was less. That's due to the lock out in 2012. The Jazz were out in the 1st round twice in that (cherry picked) 3 year stretch, and out in the 2nd round the time after. How would we react to the Heatles having that record? And even they didn't have three top 5 guys. But then you're limiting it to 3 years, whereas in actuality from 86 to 92 (your chosen sample) the Jazz won an average of 49.7 wins a year, made it out of the 2nd round once in 7 years, and had four 1st round defeats. That's rubbish if they had three top 5 players those years. Of course the reality is they only had 1, so it's fine.

[One_and_Done]

You talk about how other teams did, but did those other teams have 3 supposed top 5 players? What team with three top 5 players constantly failed to go deep in the playoffs? Not just in that era, but in NBA history?

If you want your questions answered, trying answering those questions posed to you. That's how this works.

Being the 6th best team is a drastic underperformance relative to what is typical three top 5 players

I never said Eaton was a top 5 player from 1985-86 to 1991-92. Only that he should be considered for POY in 1984-85. Try reading this thread.

But let's go with your statement. Why don't you tell us what is typical of a team with 3 top 5 players? And:

Not just in that era, but in NBA history?

Being the 6th best team is a drastic underperformance relative to what is typical of teams with three top 10 players(let alone top 5).

Fine. Why don't you explain this to all of us so we are on the same page. Why don't you tell us what is typical of teams with 3 top 10 players, and:

Not just in that era, but in NBA history?

It would be more effective to frame it as "the Utah Jazz were a top 6 team on the strength of an Eaton anchored defense"

That's how it has been framed. Read this thread.

Yet OandD is crushing you on this topic thus far.

I am crushed.

Accordingly, OandD never watching him play(lets say its true) doesn't do much besides indicate that your eyestest is garbage and your opinions shouldn't be taken seriously.

Were you alive and watching the Utah Jazz and Mark Eaton in the mid-to-late 80s and early 90s? Let me guess.

Was or was not Eaton DPOY in 1984-85? Also 1988-89? Was he or was he not also all-defensive team 5 straight seasons 1984-85 to 1988-89 (3 times 1st team)?

Those awards were voted on by NBA coaches, broadcasters, sportwriters. Was their collective eye test garbage too, and do you feel their opinions shouldn't be taken seriously either?

I was about to add that while the PS failures are the real killer, the Jazz underachieved in the RS regardless if they had three top 5 type players

Then why don't you enlighten us as to how teams with 3 top 5 players achieved, and:

Not just in that era, but in NBA history?

Your all over the place here. Do you think Stockton, Malone, and Eaton, were all top 5 type players in 1989? Because if they were then a 51 win season followed by getting swept by a 43 win Warrior outfit in the 1st round was an embarrassing performance.

I can't give you an analogy for a team with three top 5 players in their prime, because it's literally never happened in NBA history. Even 2 such players should be enough to get you to the finals most years, unless you have both horrific coaching and G'Leaguers filling out the rest of your roster. The Jazz performance was nothing resembling what 3 such players should do.

[kcktiny]

It is you and only you stating Utah having 3 top 5 players:

As others picked up on, the point is the PS success looks terrible if the Jazz had three top 5 worthy players

So you are in essence arguing with yourself. You do this often? You also wrote this:

Of course, they only ever had one so they did about as expected. Your posting history suggests you think they had 3 though

You yourself set up this entire premise you are arguing with, the Jazz having 3 top 5 players.

Hope you win this one - arguing with yourself.

If not then I think the OKC cores' ages are highly relevant.

Good for you. You still haven't explain what teams with 3 top 5 players typically do, as you have repeatedly asked. And you won't. Too much work on your part.

It is also disingenuous for you to claim they Jazz had 'one more win' when their win% was less.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Wins are wins.

How would we react to the Heatles having that record?

The what?

from 86 to 92 (your chosen sample) the Jazz won an average of 49.7 wins a year, made it out of the 2nd round once in 7 years, and had four 1st round defeats. That's rubbish if they had three top 5 players those years.

Are you having fun arguing with yourself again?

Of course the reality is they only had 1, so it's fine.

Phew! You over this yet?

Do you think Stockton, Malone, and Eaton, were all top 5 type players in 1989?

Obviously not over this yet.

You do realize you are repeatedly arguing with yourself here, do you not?

You are like a dog chasing it's own tail. At some point you are just going to stop due to exhaustion.

I can't give you an analogy for a team with three top 5 players in their prime, because it's literally never happened in NBA history.

Then why do you keep asking for it:

You talk about how other teams did, but did those other teams have 3 supposed top 5 players? What team with three top 5 players constantly failed to go deep in the playoffs? Not just in that era, but in NBA history?

That's your quote. You are quite literally talking to yourself in circles.

The Jazz performance was nothing resembling what 3 such players should do.

Well I'm so glad you have finally convinced yourself.

At some point are you going to speak on whether Mark Eaton should be considered for POY in 1984-85 based on his defense? If so get back to us after your nap.

[OhayoKD]

You talk about how other teams did, but did those other teams have 3 supposed top 5 players? What team with three top 5 players constantly failed to go deep in the playoffs? Not just in that era, but in NBA history?

If you want your questions answered, trying answering those questions posed to you. That's how this works.

Uh, no. Your argument and, at this point, your credibility on the matter as a whole, hinges on your ability to answer OandD's question satisfactorily. While One and Done could explain the concept of hyperbole to you, such an explanation would not be germane to One and Done's skepticism.

Being the 6th best team is a drastic underperformance relative to what is typical three top 5 players

I never said Eaton was a top 5 player from 1985-86 to 1991-92. Only that he should be considered for POY in 1984-85. Try reading this thread.

But let's go with your statement. Why don't you tell us what is typical of a team with 3 top 5 players? And:

Not just in that era, but in NBA history?

Being the 6th best team is a drastic underperformance relative to what is typical of teams with three top 10 players(let alone top 5).

Fine. Why don't you explain this to all of us so we are on the same page. Why don't you tell us what is typical of teams with 3 top 10 players, and:

What is typical is they win titles.

Accordingly, OandD never watching him play(lets say its true) doesn't do much besides indicate that your eyestest is garbage and your opinions shouldn't be taken seriously.

Were you alive and watching the Utah Jazz and Mark Eaton in the mid-to-late 80s and early 90s? Let me guess.

Was or was not Eaton DPOY in 1984-85? Also 1988-89? Was he or was he not also all-defensive team 5 straight seasons 1984-85 to 1988-89 (3 times 1st team)?

I do not recall OandD questioning his status as a defender. A more relevant second-hand source would be MVP voting...where Eaton never finished top 10.

Those awards were voted on by NBA coaches, broadcasters, sportwriters. Was their collective eye test garbage too, and do you feel their opinions shouldn't be taken seriously either?

For anyone using historical accounts properly, the level of seriousness their opinions deserve depends to the degree those claims contradict primary sources(impact, tape, ect), and their track-record getting things right/wrong. The guard-selections, the inputs they decided were relevant to defensive performance, and them being comically off on how many of the plays they chose to count actually transpired puts any opinion they had about defense rather low in my evaluation.

[trelos6]

On the Eaton POY comment, he was bad offensively. Bill Russell was at least a great passer and was a decent scorer in the post season. This impacts him greatly.

[kcktiny]

While One and Done could explain the concept of hyperbole to you, such an explanation would not be germane to One and Done's skepticism.

Then he should actually watch Mark Eaton play, like those coaches/broadcasters/sportwriters who did watch him - a lot - that voted him DPOY and all-defensive team, to alleviate his skepticism.

I simply asked/opined if a player who had a truly dominant defensive season can be considered a POY as well as a DPOY.

What is typical is they win titles.

Really? Gee, such a revelation. Nice generalization.

What team with three top 5 players constantly failed to go deep in the playoffs? Not just in that era, but in NBA history?

Care to explain which specific teams with 3 top 5 players won titles?

Again, you won't because it's too much work. You make statements you have no desire to back up with pertinent info.

A more relevant second-hand source would be MVP voting...where Eaton never finished top 10.

Rudy Gobert finished 11th, 11th, and 10th in MVP voting the 3 years he won DPOY.

Dikembe Mutombo won 4 DPOYs, never finished higher than 13th in MVP voting.

Dwight Howard the 3 years he won DPOY was 4th, 4th, and 3rd in MVP voting.

What's your point?

I don't think any of these 3 multiple DPOY award winners had as dominant a defensive season as Eaton had in 1984-85. My question is can a player who was as dominant defensively as we've ever seen be considered as POY (without having been anything on offense). In other words just how much was his impact on defense?

For anyone using historical accounts properly, the level of seriousness their opinions deserve depends to the degree those claims contradict primary sources(impact, tape, ect),

What a complete bunch of gibberish nonsense. What primary sources? What do you mean by impact? And who is watching tape years later that overrides the opinions of those that saw and voted for players at the time they actually played?

and their track-record getting things right/wrong.

Again what kind of ridiculousness is this statement? Who decides what DPOYs and all-defensive team nominations are right/wrong years after they were made? You? Someone else? Is there some committee somewhere that is doing this?

We can debate them, but where are you getting this idea that there is some entity or entities out there that years down the road make better (or in your verbiage "right") selections? What entity is watching those players play more than those that watched them play when they did actually play? What evidence do you have now that they did not have back then that makes your choices now the "right" choices?

and them being comically off on how many of the plays they chose to count actually transpired puts any opinion they had about defense rather low in my evaluation.

Oh I get it. It is you all these years (3-4 decades) later calling their choices as comical that is now more suited to make proper defensive evaluations of players from the 80s and 90s?? Are you serious? You watching a lot of film these days are you?

Why don't you give us examples of some of these comical choices made 3-4 decades ago that you are now more informed to make the "right" choices?

On the Eaton POY comment, he was bad offensively.

He clearly wasn't anywhere near good. But it wasn't like he was missing a ton of shots or committing a ton of turnovers (or both). He missed just 4-5 FGA/g, committed just 2.5 TO/g in 1984-85. He was pretty much just a non-factor on offense.

My point was could a player be so outstanding defensively that it would override his non-factorness on offense and be as valuable as the best overall players in the league? He blocked more shots that season than anyone has in 4 decades, grabbed the most defensive rebounds by a player that year. Was that the best defensive season by a player since the league first tracked blocked shots (1973-74)?

Bill Russell was at least a great passer and was a decent scorer in the post season.

I specifically mentioned players from 1973-74 and after simply because we don't have stats for blocked shots for the likes of Russell or Chamberlain or Thurmond. Just my opinion but I don't believe those 3 ever blocked shots at as high a per minute rate as Eaton or Manute Bol did in their best seasons. But those 3 had seasons of playing 45-48 min/g and 80+ games, so I do believe they could have blocked as many as 500 shots in a season.

[One_and_Done]

I was expecting having to push back on votes for Stockton. I never thought I'd need to bother with Mark Eaton.

[70sFan]

This discussion is horrible, but taking Eaton into consideration for 1985 POY is interesting. I will have to take a closer look on that matter. You can argue he was the best player in the Rockets series period.

[70sFan]

However, to lend English some potential support from others, I would like to highlight this:

1984/85 Postseason Dantley versus English — 28.5/8.5/3.9/0.1/1.4 on 63.9% true shooting (4-6 record)

1984/85 Postseason English versus Dantley — 29.8/7.4/5.8/0.4/0.9 on 63.5% true shooting (6-4 record)

Both were at their peaks, and English was the one facing the tougher defence.

The question is whether Jazz were any better defensively without Eaton. I wouldn't say so, Wilkins wasn't a good replacement for Eaton on defense and they didn't have much defensive talent outside of Mark.

[penbeast0]

Let's start with the idea that Mark Eaton ever vaguely resembled a top 5 player. He didn't. He was a great shotblocker, not a great defender otherwise as he was immobile and slowfooted. Offensively, he was one of the worst in the league with neither good movement nor good shooting ability from anywhere outside of 5 feet. Average rebounder. He did what he did and did it well, but he didn't do anything else very well.

[70sFan]

Let's start with the idea that Mark Eaton ever vaguely resembled a top 5 player. He didn't. He was a great shotblocker, not a great defender otherwise as he was immobile and slowfooted. Offensively, he was one of the worst in the league with neither good movement nor good shooting ability from anywhere outside of 5 feet. Average rebounder. He did what he did and did it well, but he didn't do anything else very well.

1. He wasn't an average rebounder in 1984/85. He posted a career-high 17.0 REB%, which is good.

2. Being one dimensional doesn't necessarily reject you from top 5 discussion. Eaton's shotblocking ability is a massive outlier, his inside presence is among the best ever. That alone made him a great defender, especially back when the outside game was less relevant.

3. I don't think young Eaton was nearly as immobile as people try to make him look. He wasn't Hakeem of course, but he could move and knew how to use his massive frame.

That doesn't make him a top 5 player, but I could entertain his case for top 15 for this year.

[LA Bird]

Hakeem has never gotten a POY vote but I feel like he has a decent case against Moses here. The gap in defense is greater than the gap in scoring especially considering playoffs dropoffs , neither were major playmakers, and Hakeem actually led the league in offensive rebounds which is Moses' greatest advantage usually.

[tsherkin]

Hakeem has never gotten a POY vote but I feel like he has a decent case against Moses here. The gap in defense is greater than the gap in scoring especially considering playoffs dropoffs , neither were major playmakers, and Hakeem actually led the league in offensive rebounds which is Moses' greatest advantage usually.

Olajuwon's best OREB season, for sure.

[kcktiny]

Let's start with the idea that Mark Eaton ever vaguely resembled a top 5 player. He didn't. He was a great shotblocker, not a great defender otherwise as he was immobile and slowfooted.

From 1983-84 to 1991-92 (9 seasons) Eaton was the Jazz starting C and played 2000+ minutes/season. The Utah Jazz were the best defensive team in the league at just 103.2 pts/100poss allowed. No other team was better than 104.5 pts/100poss allowed (Detroit). The difference between Utah and Detroit (1.3 pts/100poss allowed) was more than the difference between the 2nd best defensive team and the 8th best defensive team Boston (105.4 pts/100poss allowed).

Meaning Utah was a dominant defensive team over those 9 years.

During that time as a team they were only average for turnovers forced (16.8 opponent TO/100poss), and only average for defensive rebounding percentage (67.0%). But they allowed just a 46.9% 2pt FG% (over those 9 years only 6% of FGAs were 3pt attempts). No other team was better than just a 47.8% 2pt FG% allowed, and that difference of 0.9% 2pt FG% allowed was the same as the difference between the 2nd best team at lowest 2pt FG% allowed at 47.8% (Boston) and the 8th best at 48.7% (Washington).

So Utah was a dominant defensive team for a long 9 year stretch first and foremost because of allowing a very low 2pt FG%.

Why do you think that is?

Eaton alone played 1/8 of Utah's total minutes over those 9 years (31 min/g, 730 g).

[Paulluxx9000]

1 Magic
2 Larry Bird
3 Moses Malone
4 Kareem
5 Hakeem
Why Magic for POY?

The easy response is he won the chip but, let’s start out with some context.
Over the previous years the offense goes from Kareem-centric to Magic-centric. A lot of people lament Magic not being given the reigns earlier but it’s not so easy. Prime Kareem completely invalidates high-level defense if you use him right.(and who was using him correctly…) Even now he is a huge headache for opposing teams but, you know who also invalidates high-level defense entirely? Magic.
It’s easy to just look at the assists but if you go by the assists Isiah isn’t that far off. Here’s what Magic has that Isiah doesn’t. You have 5 guys there to make sure Magic or one of his teammates doesn’t score. But if there’s just a sliver of daylight. Just a few guys ever so slightly overextended…Magic might just render all 5 of those defenders moot in a flash. He has unbelievable ball control, he’s big and powerful at the basket, he uses his eyes better than anyone, and has a cannon for an arm. He can defeat your defense basically himself. He might not end the possession with a tough contested fadeaway, but he’ll do it his way. And there’s only one other guy you could ever say that about. And he isn’t going to be on anyone’s ballot until 2004.(unless you’re really into him and are a “High school LeBron was the level of an NBA All-Star” (real people that exist))

Finally, his brain. His advanced stats are ridiculous But that doesn’t tell you how someone makes his teammates better. Magic’s impact is ridiculous. Magic is the smartest player on the court every time he steps on it(yes, smarter than Bird). He knows where he needs to go and where you need to go and he’ll make sure you and him both go where you need to go at the time and place you both need to be there. And he does that better than anyone else and everyone who comes after, probably even including that 2004 guy(who’s better at a couple other things).
Is his team good? Yes. Is Kareem amazing? Definitely. But we seem him still doing all this with explicitly fine and not Kareem teammates when he crosses 30
Bird’s not at his best in the playoffs but I’m not going to put up inferior players just because he moved the wrong way at the wrong time. There’s lots of holes in his game but I think what I said about Magic about making guys better applies here too. I’m not going to use this as some get-out-of-jail free card and inevitably vote Bird top 2 every year like some might, but this year there’s only one real all-time guy and that guy is above. Moses was good but he’s not of that calibre anymore. Next year there’ll be two all-time calibre guys so Bird will slip, but for POY thread I can only rank players against who they played in that season and Bird is top 2 for me.

And then Kareem and Hakeem are two of the top mixes of rim protection juice and offensive threat, Kareem with a great finals and Hakeem as a Rookie was the best defender in the league. And should’ve won rookie of the year without a single doubt.

[penbeast0]

Let's start with the idea that Mark Eaton ever vaguely resembled a top 5 player. He didn't. He was a great shotblocker, not a great defender otherwise as he was immobile and slowfooted.

From 1983-84 to 1991-92 (9 seasons) Eaton was the Jazz starting C and played 2000+ minutes/season. The Utah Jazz were the best defensive team in the league at just 103.2 pts/100poss allowed. No other team was better than 104.5 pts/100poss allowed (Detroit). The difference between Utah and Detroit (1.3 pts/100poss allowed) was more than the difference between the 2nd best defensive team and the 8th best defensive team Boston (105.4 pts/100poss allowed).

Meaning Utah was a dominant defensive team over those 9 years.

During that time as a team they were only average for turnovers forced (16.8 opponent TO/100poss), and only average for defensive rebounding percentage (67.0%). But they allowed just a 46.9% 2pt FG% (over those 9 years only 6% of FGAs were 3pt attempts). No other team was better than just a 47.8% 2pt FG% allowed, and that difference of 0.9% 2pt FG% allowed was the same as the difference between the 2nd best team at lowest 2pt FG% allowed at 47.8% (Boston) and the 8th best at 48.7% (Washington).

So Utah was a dominant defensive team for a long 9 year stretch first and foremost because of allowing a very low 2pt FG%.

Why do you think that is?

Eaton alone played 1/8 of Utah's total minutes over those 9 years (31 min/g, 730 g).

Why do I think that is? Because Eaton was a DOMINANT shot blocker, arguably 2nd best in NBA history behind Manute Bol. And because the rest of the team did a strong job of defending and funneling players into him as Sloan played SFs that couldn't shoot well but played strong defense plus K. Malone and Stockton were strong defenders. Eaton is indeed the strength of that defense and a consistent DPOY candidate, his other weaknesses I think keep him from ever being a top 5 player in the league.