Retro Player of the Year 1992-93 UPDATE — Hakeem Olajuwon

[DirtyDez]

How many times has one of these threads produced a winner that didn’t reach the conference finals while the 2x defending MVP/champion won his third straight title in dominant fashion?

[70sFan]

How many times has one of these threads produced a winner that didn’t reach the conference finals while the 2x defending MVP/champion won his third straight title in dominant fashion?

I don't know, but I know I will vote for Duncan ahead of Shaq in 2002 with identical situation.

The winner also carried on and won the next 2 titles in a row, it's not like we're talking about a guy doing nothing after.

[lessthanjake]

As for Horace Grant, I think I agree that Grant was perhaps undersold a bit (definitely compared to Rodman, though I liked Rodman more at the time, for sheer humor value). But I think there’s a real effort by people (not you specifically) to way overcompensate on him, in order to downplay Jordan. Horace Grant was a good player, but let’s remember that he went to another team in his prime and didn’t get a whole lot of recognition there either. This wasn’t about people promoting Jordan or Pippen. Horace Grant was just a good NBA starter and nothing much more than that. I’d put him at about the same level as a guy like Aaron Gordon nowadays (not that they have all the exact same strengths and weaknesses, of course).

No, come on. Everyone accepts the idea that Pippen is one of if not the best perimeter defender of all time yet Bach along with others think Grant had more impact on that end. Then he's also capable of spreading the floor a bit, can rebound quite well and is getting more win shares than Pippen some years. Does this mean I think he was better or more valuable than Pippen? Not exactly but that's partly because Pippen was generally a lot better in the playoffs in comparison. Grant was a big part of those teams though. Also, he goes to Orl and they go from 8th to 3rd in srs(granted Penny is improving as well) but then also knock out the Bulls and then the next year Grant is out and they get swept(put up 18/11 on 67%ts vs the Bulls in 95 and 18/11 the series before them in 96 before getting injured in game 1). With Grant that series likely goes down very differently.
I'm sorry but Grant was a really good player. Not top 15 most years but he peaked at #3 in win shares and #9 in vorp in the entire league in 92. He was like a perfect #3 for that team. He should have been more like a 3-4x all star but guys who avg less than 15ppg hardly ever get into all star games.

It’s very interesting that we have somebody talking about how Tom Chambers still added value, but Horace Grant was just another good NBA starter and nothing more. He didn’t receive “recognition” from people who basically only valued points per game, especially in that era. By the way, if you watch the 1995 series against the bulls, horace Grant gets a lot of credit and recognition for having a value added game in every facet of basketball. I know there’s a lot of people who talk about “didn’t watch the games back then,” but I’m really wondering about people here if they did watch basketball and Horace Grant and Tom Chambers in 1993 if they are making these types of comments. You had one older player who was slowed down and wasn’t efficient on offense anymore and was a negative on defense and was soon to be out of the NBA while on the other hand you had a very good defensive player who could also shoot, who could rebound, who was completely unselfish, had a nonstop motor, was very good in transition, and by every conceivable measure that we have was a plus player and a major part of the bulls’ uptick from a good team to a great one. Yes, he wasn’t recognized as something more or whatever the argument is because these types of players weren’t appreciated as much in that era.

You seem to be suggesting that calling someone a “good NBA starter” is an insult. Someone who is a good NBA starter is basically at least a top 75 player in the NBA (since there’s 150 starters, so the median starter should be about the 75th best player, though some 6th men can complicate that slightly). And if we’re really labeling them a “good starter” then they’re probably a decent bit above that median-starter line. It’s not an insult, nor is it disproven by listing things that Horace Grant was good at. Good starters in the NBA are good at a lot of things!

Meanwhile, I don’t know why you are harping so much about Tom Chambers having “slowed down,” given that the first post in which I mentioned him specifically talked about him having taken a step back by that point, and said I wouldn’t label the 1993 Suns a super team in significant part because of that and that Majerle was better than Chambers at that point. Did you not read that? By 1993, Chambers’s name was bigger than his actual on-court value. But having big names is part of the “super team” equation (though maybe a cosmetic one that we shouldn’t care about very much on its own—but that goes more to the “super team” label mostly being dumb in the first place). In any event, the more important part of my posts on this has been about the SRS that those pre-Barkley Suns put up. It’s something that the Bulls without Jordan really couldn’t touch. Those Suns were a really good team! The bottom line is that those Suns without Barkley averaged 6.53 SRS over a four-year span and made multiple conference finals, and then lost Jeff Hornacek but gained Danny Ainge (along with Barkley). The Bulls without Jordan didn’t crack 4 SRS either year and were below 3 SRS their one full season without Jordan, and that’s despite adding multiple pieces from what they had with Jordan. There’s not much comparison between the quality of those supporting casts IMO, if we’re just indexing on how well the teams did without their star (which is what people almost exclusively index on to try to call the Bulls a “super team”).

[DirtyDez]

How many times has one of these threads produced a winner that didn’t reach the conference finals while the 2x defending MVP/champion won his third straight title in dominant fashion?

I don't know, but I know I will vote for Duncan ahead of Shaq in 2002 with identical situation.

The winner also carried on and won the next 2 titles in a row, it's not like we're talking about a guy doing nothing after.

Agree on Duncan but it’s not identical because Shaq that year was in and out of the lineup with big toe issues which lead to “company time” the following season. However Hakeem is worthy no doubt.

[Lost92Bricks]

I don't have a problem with Hakeem over Jordan in '93 but I want people do be consistent when it comes Lebron in the 2010's. He was very clearly outplayed by other players in some of those years.

2009, 2010 and 2012, 2013 are the only years where he was clearly better than everybody. But I'm sure the data will somehow show that he was the best player in years like 2015 or 2017.

[OhayoKD]

I don't have a problem with Hakeem over Jordan in '93 but I want people do be consistent when it comes Lebron in the 2010's. He was very clearly outplayed by other players in some of those years.

2009, 2010 and 2012, 2013 are the only years where he was clearly better than everybody. But I'm sure the data will somehow show that he was the best player in years like 2015 or 2017.

2015 when he swept a 60-win team and took a 67-win team basically without either co-star?

2017 when he went off against an elite defense and the best team ever as his team's defensive anchor, floor-general, primary ball-handler, primary defensive draw, and lead playmaker?

Luckily for you, those years are not in the purview of that project. Saying KD or Steph outplayed him because they scored more/more efficiently is lol-worthy though.

[One_and_Done]

I don't have a problem with Hakeem over Jordan in '93 but I want people do be consistent when it comes Lebron in the 2010's. He was very clearly outplayed by other players in some of those years.

2009, 2010 and 2012, 2013 are the only years where he was clearly better than everybody. But I'm sure the data will somehow show that he was the best player in years like 2015 or 2017.

Lebron was the best in 2011 too. That Heat team was so unbalanced it had no business even making the finals. I'll likely be voting Lebron every year from 09 to 16 at least.

[OhayoKD]

I don't have a problem with Hakeem over Jordan in '93 but I want people do be consistent when it comes Lebron in the 2010's. He was very clearly outplayed by other players in some of those years.

2009, 2010 and 2012, 2013 are the only years where he was clearly better than everybody. But I'm sure the data will somehow show that he was the best player in years like 2015 or 2017.

Lebron was the best in 2011 too. That Heat team was so unbalanced it had no business even making the finals. I'll likely be voting Lebron every year from 09 to 16 at least.

they played like a 50-win team in non-lebron minutes. 2011 heat were flawed but Lebron had very good help that year regardless.

Dirk and dwight re no-brainers for me. Might put wade ahead too.

No real argument against(at least with how most people have voted) after until 2019 though

[One_and_Done]

I don't have a problem with Hakeem over Jordan in '93 but I want people do be consistent when it comes Lebron in the 2010's. He was very clearly outplayed by other players in some of those years.

2009, 2010 and 2012, 2013 are the only years where he was clearly better than everybody. But I'm sure the data will somehow show that he was the best player in years like 2015 or 2017.

Lebron was the best in 2011 too. That Heat team was so unbalanced it had no business even making the finals. I'll likely be voting Lebron every year from 09 to 16 at least.

they played like a 50-win team in non-lebron minutes. 2011 heat were flawed but Lebron had very good help that year regardless.

Dirk and dwight re no-brainers for me. Might put wade ahead too.

No real argument against(at least with how most people have voted) after until 2019 though

Lebron was the best player until the finals. Seems weird to not give it to him, when if you put any other player in his place they don't make the Finals to begin with.

[OhayoKD]

Lebron was the best in 2011 too. That Heat team was so unbalanced it had no business even making the finals. I'll likely be voting Lebron every year from 09 to 16 at least.

they played like a 50-win team in non-lebron minutes. 2011 heat were flawed but Lebron had very good help that year regardless.

Dirk and dwight re no-brainers for me. Might put wade ahead too.

No real argument against(at least with how most people have voted) after until 2019 though

Lebron was the best player until the finals. Seems weird to not give it to him, when if you put any other player in his place they don't make the Finals to begin with.

According to what? Empirically Dirk and Dwight provided more value and both fit better on the heat that iteration of Lebron did

[Lost92Bricks]

2015 when he swept a 60-win team and took a 67-win team basically without either co-star?

2017 when he went off against an elite defense and the best team ever as his team's defensive anchor, floor-general, primary ball-handler, primary defensive draw, and lead playmaker?

Luckily for you, those years are not in the purview of that project. Saying KD or Steph outplayed him because they scored more/more efficiently is lol-worthy though.

2015 he was outplayed and overshadowed by Curry and the Warriors in the regular season. Then he lost in the finals with a historically inefficient high volume performance. Great effort but not best in the league worthy.

2017 got clearly outplayed by KD in the finals. Won 51 games with 2 all-stars on his team. Didn't have any kind of great defensive season by any indication.

[Lost92Bricks]

Lebron was the best in 2011 too. That Heat team was so unbalanced it had no business even making the finals. I'll likely be voting Lebron every year from 09 to 16 at least.

Wade was better than Lebron in 2011.

[Lost92Bricks]

I don't expect you guys to not vote Lebron all those years.

But if you take away bias and put a microscope under him like you guys do Jordan then you realize he has even less of a case than Jordan did in the years he wasn't voted #1.

Its obviously not everything but Lebron has not won MVP since 2013. He has not made an All-defensive team since 2013 I'm pretty sure.

He has one season where his team won 60 games or more since 2013.

He didn't lead the league in any advanced stats ether I'm pretty sure since 2013.

Every year he was getting overshadowed in the regular season. The focus is always on the playoffs (when in history did the regular season not matter with the best player in the league convo?). Which leads to a finals loss, then there's an excuse whether a valid one or not.

[OhayoKD]

I don't expect you guys to not vote Lebron all those years.

But if you take away bias and put a microscope under him like you guys do Jordan then you realize he has even less of a case than Jordan did in the years he wasn't voted #1.

Biased, huh? Well then let's hear your objective explanation. How does Lebron, playing without the 2 best players on a team that failed to cross a 30-win pace without him, sweeping a 60-win team and taking a 67-win team to 6 compare to Jordan taking a 25+ cast to 50 before getting waxed in 5 by a non-champion?


If by "put under a microscope" you mean throw made-up formulas that support your priors. Otherwise, no. The biased party here is you lol

Every year he was getting overshadowed in the regular season. The focus is always on the playoffs (when in history did the regular season not matter with the best player in the league convo?)

Jordan literally won his first POY specifically because the focus was on the playoffs. He got votes vs Hakeem specifically because the focus was on the playoffs.

[Lost92Bricks]

Biased, huh? Well then let's hear your objective explanation. How does Lebron, playing without the 2 best players on a team that failed to cross a 30-win pace without him, sweeping a 60-win team and taking a 67-win team to 6 compare to Jordan taking a 25+ cast to 50 before getting waxed in 5 by a non-champion?


If by "put under a microscope" you mean throw made-up formulas that support your priors. Otherwise, no. The biased party here is you lol

The 60 win team was the fraud Hawks. Come on. Lebron after 2012 played in a conference where there were literally no other superstars to challenge him.

MJ lost to the Pistons but he at least did others things to prove he was the best player. Like actually have a historically dominant season. And even averaged 45 in a playoff series.

Isn't Curry a better choice than Lebron in 2015? Didn't he win MVP? Didn't he get the Warriors to 67 wins? Didn't he win the finals? You would think that's the best player right? But not according the the PC board which is 70% Lebron fans.

[OhayoKD]

Biased, huh? Well then let's hear your objective explanation. How does Lebron, playing without the 2 best players on a team that failed to cross a 30-win pace without him, sweeping a 60-win team and taking a 67-win team to 6 compare to Jordan taking a 25+ cast to 50 before getting waxed in 5 by a non-champion?


If by "put under a microscope" you mean throw made-up formulas that support your priors. Otherwise, no. The biased party here is you lol

The 60 win team was the fraud Hawks.

Ah, but the Mark Price Cavs were legit. Not to mention being significantly more competitive vs the 67-win warriors, with a weaker cast, than jordan was vs the Pistons. No seriously, be serious. Lebron was more valuable to a better team in both the regular-season and the playoffs. "Historically dominant" was likely not as conducive to winning and that's really all that needs to be said.

The rest is just optics.

Isn't Curry a better choice than Lebron in 2015? Didn't he win MVP? Didn't he get the Warriors to 67 wins?

They had similar rs-lift and then the cavs elevated in the postseason despite massive injury issues while the warriors didn't. and then Lebron played better head to head.

[Lost92Bricks]

Ah, but the Mark Price Cavs were legit. Not to mention being significantly more competitive vs the 67-win warriors, with a weaker cast, than jordan was vs the Pistons. No seriously, be serious. Lebron was more valuable to a better team in both the regular-season and the playoffs. "Historically dominant" was likely not as conducive to winning and that's really all that needs to be said.

The rest is just optics.

I'll take that Cavs team over the 2015 Hawks easily.

Lebron shot 47 TS% in the finals, That's not all that conducive to winning. Certainly not more than Curry.

And that's just one year.

Is Lebron better than Durant in 2014? I'm not sure about that either.

Is he better than Kawhi and Durant in 2017? I don't think so.

[OhayoKD]

Ah, but the Mark Price Cavs were legit. Not to mention being significantly more competitive vs the 67-win warriors, with a weaker cast, than jordan was vs the Pistons. No seriously, be serious. Lebron was more valuable to a better team in both the regular-season and the playoffs. "Historically dominant" was likely not as conducive to winning and that's really all that needs to be said.

The rest is just optics.

I'll take that Cavs team over the 2015 Hawks easily.

With Lebron? Sure. Without Lebron? Reality disagrees.

Lebron shot 47 TS% in the finals, That's not all that conducive to winning. Certainly not more than Curry.

He also had an ast:tov percentage of 55:8 and anchored a -5 playoff defense which turned -5 against the Warriors with a cast of defenders which were neutral/negatives that year before being traded to play with Lebron.

Jordan nor Steph has ever created or defended like that in their lives. That's the difference between being crowned the best and actually being the best.

[lessthanjake]

Ah, but the Mark Price Cavs were legit. Not to mention being significantly more competitive vs the 67-win warriors, with a weaker cast, than jordan was vs the Pistons. No seriously, be serious. Lebron was more valuable to a better team in both the regular-season and the playoffs. "Historically dominant" was likely not as conducive to winning and that's really all that needs to be said.

The rest is just optics.

I'll take that Cavs team over the 2015 Hawks easily.

With Lebron? Sure. Without Lebron? Reality disagrees.

Lebron shot 47 TS% in the finals, That's not all that conducive to winning. Certainly not more than Curry.

He also had an ast:tov percentage of 55:8 and anchored a -5 playoff defense which turned -5 against the Warriors with a cast of defenders which were neutral/negatives that year before being traded to play with Lebron.

Jordan nor Steph has ever created or defended like that in their lives. That's the difference between being crowned the best and actually being the best.

I think this whole discussion is really off-topic, but I just want to note that “ast:tov percentage” is not a real stat and is really misleading. The denominator in assist % and turnover % are not at all the same—assist % is the percent of teammates FGs assisted by the player, while turnover % is an estimate of turnovers per 100 plays. It does not make any sense whatsoever to combine these two stats into some kind of ratio, when they do not have the same denominator. Just so everyone is clear, LeBron had 53 assists and 21 turnovers, so it was a 2.5 assist:turnover ratio. Which isn’t bad at all, of course, but it seemed worth clarifying the assist:turnover ratio, given what seemed like a subtle sleight of hand here.

[OhayoKD]

I'll take that Cavs team over the 2015 Hawks easily.

With Lebron? Sure. Without Lebron? Reality disagrees.

Lebron shot 47 TS% in the finals, That's not all that conducive to winning. Certainly not more than Curry.

He also had an ast:tov percentage of 55:8 and anchored a -5 playoff defense which turned -5 against the Warriors with a cast of defenders which were neutral/negatives that year before being traded to play with Lebron.

Jordan nor Steph has ever created or defended like that in their lives. That's the difference between being crowned the best and actually being the best.

I think this whole discussion is really off-topic, but I just want to note that “ast:tov percentage” is not a real stat and is really misleading. The denominator in assist % and turnover % are not at all the same—assist % is the percent of teammates FGs assisted by the player, while turnover % is an estimate of turnovers per 100 plays. It does not make any sense whatsoever to combine these two stats into some kind of ratio

It correlates better with team offensive rating than raw assist:tov per nylon calc tests. Though for whatever reason I've never seen it tested against "percentage of teammate assists": "percentage of teammates turnovers".

Either way the dominator of a denominator and the denominator of a numerator does not need to be the same to have utility as a ratio. I don't know where you got that from.

The load of creation you shoulder(to whatever extent assists work as a proxy for that): the frequency you turn-the-ball over seems like a useful indicator to me