RealGM Top 100 List #9

[90sAllDecade]

Spoiler:

But you're wrong. People are specifically singling out Hakeem's pre-93 team success as a point of contention in his ranking, and that's a concern I wanted to address, since it has broader implications through this whole project. This is a guy who, when he had some talent, took his team to the Finals through the reigning-champ Lakers when he was in his second season. Then his teammates fell off and he had some coaching issues that undermined team success despite significant individual performance. The arc looks very similar to what we've seen from basically every other player in league history under similar circumstances. It parallels early Jordan, Minny Garnett, everyone. And this is a point of discussion in this particular ranking thread right now over the last few pages, so it is eminently relevant to this discussion. Whether or not he's apt to be ranked #9 is irrelevant because that is the tone and content of the discussion right now.



Right, but taking what I said and trying to extend it into a complaint that people aren't respecting him as a great player is fallacious and not what I was arguing. We're talking about people using his team success as a critique of his potential ranking in this project, and I want to address that concept. We dance around it often and waffle frequently but have not really discussed the point to a meaningful degree over time, and that was the point of my comment. You can take exception to the word "ripping" if you like, but it's a semantic point not terribly salient to the meat of what I was saying. People are using that portion of Hakeem's career to attack his candidacy for the position, so I want to discuss the point.

To whit, we're talking about a guy who looked like this through the 92 season:

RS: 22.9 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 51.3% FG. 69.3% FT (6.9 FTA/g), 55.3% TS, 109 ORTG, .184 WS/48
PS: 26.5 ppg, 12.5 rpg. 54.0% FG, 68.0% FT (8.9 FTA/g), 58.0% TS, 118 ORTG, .223 WS/48

There are many other and deeper ways to analyze his performance, and season-by-season is more appropriate than a full overview, but I want to look at this... the guy's a perennial high-quality defensive anchor by almost every measure, he's performing pretty well in the RS on offense (we've seen the RAPM stuff and it shows a player who was very effective on O) and he absolutely murders it in the postseason for the most part, and this is all pre-peak performance. We watched Sampson fall apart due to injury and saw some noticeable offensive decline under Chaney. We've seen the in/out data for Hakeem and the notes that his teammates had a largely unsustainable and unrepeated streak of success in his absence which helped them go 16-10 in his absence in the 91 season, and we saw the slight turnaround when Rudy T took over midway through the following season. Further, it behooves one to remember that through most of this period, he was still contending with the Showtime Lakers and Drexler's Blazers in his conference, as well as the rising Sonics, the Jazz and the Suns. It's not like he was in some easy conference where he could feast on a lot of bad teams, and he didn't really have comparable talent at all.

So in terms of expectations, it's a little unreasonable to project that he should have won a ton more once you factor in competition, injuries and coaching. Obviously, Hakeem wasn't his peak self the entire time, I mean he had to develop as a shooter from the mid-range and even at the line, etc, but his playoff performance was pretty spectacular and there's a pretty clear decline in the team's efficacy as Sampson lost effectiveness due to injury and then vanished entirely, and with what was he replaced? Olajuwon didn't even have Thorpe until the 89-90 season and then his backcourt didn't round out properly until the early 90s either, and didn't even have Drexler until mid-way through the second title season.

There is some basic threshold of roster quality past which no one can do a ton. Like I said, even Jordan wasn't able to do anything but lead his first couple of teams to sub-.500 records before the roster fleshed out more properly, and further wasn't able to gain real traction in the postseason until Phil got there. I don't mean to directly compare them, because most consider Jordan the GOAT and he's got the full package of accolades, individual ability and postseason success to render that conversation somewhat moot, but it remains relevant: if the putative GOAT couldn't do a ton, what can we really expect from any other player?

NBA basketball is a game where, more so than most other major sports, an individual can exert a hugely palpable force on any given night and thus over the course of a season, but even at the highest levels of individual performance, there's only so much to be done to overcome a poor supporting cast... which is something Hakeem, and many others, experienced during stretches of their career.

Kobe's another one where we have to discuss this, because people seem to forget that the Lakers were actually 24-19 before Rudy T quit and then 10-19 under Hamblen. The divide wasn't so obvious mid-season when Rudy T took over for Don Chaney, but there was a palpable difference mostly on the basis of coaching. We've seen all kinds of qualitative discussion over the mismanagement of the Rockets' offense prior to Tomjanovich's arrival, so there is ample evidence to suggest that factors beyond Olajuwon's control were major contributors to his lack of success through the given period.

And again, that's a major point of discussion. At what point do such factors determine "greatness" as we intend to explore it in this project? It seems that it is inevitable that a list of accolades and team success are the ultimate final determinants... only we're seeing that some of the most decorated players are beginning to fall in our collective estimation now (as we see with Bird and Magic here in this project), so there should be some concurrent elevation of those players who struggled and eventually overcame lame-duck management as well, no? That's the keystone point here.

This is an outstanding post and speaks to the elephant in the room, the guys in this GOAT list needed team support to win, even Jordan, Kareem, LeBron, Garnett, everyone.

Some were fortunate to have played with an all star or HOF coach thier entire career (Russell, Magic, Bird, Duncan with Pops and even Wilt with his quota all stars back then.)

But if you really want to seperate the wheat from the chaff, see how those guys did without that team support, in adverse situations.

This comparison shows how the GOAT players faired without an all star or HOF coach, it is incomplete as it only happened to a few players certain years.

Regular Season Records and Playoff success comparison of top 10 players, during the years without HOF coaching or HOF or All Star teammates:

Jordan (no Pippen, Grant or Phil Jackson):

84-85 (Rookie):
38-44, -0.50 SRS, 11th Ortg, 20th Drtg, Lost 1st Round

85-86 (Injured for season, healthy for Playoffs):
30-52, -3.12 SRS, 8th Ortg, 23rd Drtg, Lost 1st Round

86-87 (Coaching change):
40-42, 1.27 SRS, 12th Ortg, 11th Drtg, Lost 1st Round

Kareem (no Oscar, Magic or Pat Riley):

75-76:
40-42, 0.17 SRS, 7th Ortg, 13th Drtg, No playoff appearance

76-77 (Coaching change):
53-29, 2.65 SRS, 5th Ortg, 10th Drtg, Lost WCF (1st round byes back then)

77-78:
45-37, 2.59 SRS, 3rd Ortg, 11th Drtg, Lost 1st Round

79-80:
47-35, 2.95 SRS, 5th Ortg, 10th Drtg, Lost 2nd Round

Kevin Garnett (No All star players):

95-96 (Rookie, High School player):
26-56, -5.14 SRS, 25 Ortg, 20th Drtg, No playoff appearance

97-98 (Coaching change):
45-37, 0.17 SRS, 7th Ortg, 23rd Drtg, Lost 1st Round

98-99 (Lockout year, only 50 games played):
25-25. -0.17 SRS, 17th Ortg, 11 Drtg, Lost 1st Round

99-00:
50-32, 2.67 SRS, 8th Ortg, 12th Drtg, Lost 1st Round

00-01:
47-35, 1.81 SRS, 11th Ortg, 16th Drtg, Lost 1st Round

02-03:
51-31, 2.46 SRS, 5th Ortg, 16th Drtg, Lost 1st Round

04-05:
44-38, 1.73 SRS, 6th Ortg, 15th Drtg, No playoff appearance

05-06 (coaching change):
33-49,-1.75 SRS, 28th Ortg, 10th Drtg, No playoff appearance

06-07:
32-50, -3.16 SRS, 25th Ortg, 21st Drtg, No playoff appearance

LeBron James (no All star player):

03-04 (Rookie, High School player):
35-47, -3.07 SRS, 22nd Ortg, 19th Drtg, No playoff apperance

05-06 (Coaching change):
50-32, 2.17 SRS, 9th Ortg, 14th Drtg, Lost 2nd Round

06-07:
50-32, 3.33 SRS, 18th Ortg, 4th Drtg, Lost in Finals

07-08:
45-37, -0.53 SRS, 20th Ortg, 11th Drtg, Lost in 2nd Round

09-10:
61-21, 6.17 SRS, 6th Ortg, 7th Drtg, Lost in 2nd Round

Hakeem Olajuwon (No All star player):

87-88:
46-36, .082 SRS, 13th Ortg, 4th Drtg, Lost 1st Round

88-89 (Coaching change, Don Chaney):
45-37, 0.22 SRS, 18th Ortg, 4th Drtg, Lost 1st Round

89-90:
41-41, 1.71 SRS, 21 Ortg, 1st Drtg, Lost 1st Round

92-93 (Coaching change, Rudy T):
55-27, 3.57 SRS, 6th Ortg, 3rd Drtg, Lost 2nd Round

93-94:
58-24, 4.19 SRS, 15th Ortg, 2nd Drtg, Won NBA Championship

Comparing Olajuwon's teams in 1993 and 1994 to Garnett's in 2007 is pretty absurd, no offense.

I kept saying the same thing over and over again, but it's wrong to rate casts simply with "all-star player" for so many reasons.

You have a right to your opinion, the differences were noted before hand. There is a wealth of information there showing clear differences by team support (however you care to define it) and coaching changes affecting GOAT player team success. You can choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions of rankings, or people can study those changes to challenge the status quo and reap new perspective, which I believe some wanted out of this project.

Even in the mathematic or scientific field or other fields, when someone presents data or ideas that goes against the consensus status quo, that person is either usually appreciated for breaking new ground or scorned/dismissed for threatening old ideas and established perspectives.

Team support and coaching impact is one of the most anemic analysis we have in basketball and defense is right before that. RAPM isn't accurate pre 97 due to lack of data,( so I'm told, not an expert). With the mathematical ability some posters have here, instead of dismissing this new outlook, why not explore it?

I don't expect you to agree with this and it will likely fall on deaf ears, but hopefully in plays in the consideration of others.

[PaulieWal]

OT but I feel like Phil is one of the underrated trolls in the NBA. He has a tendency of making trollish statements in the media .

Agreed. Remember the 'asterisk' that the Spurs needed to have after their lockout championship in 99?

Yeah, and the Spurs not being a dynasty though he probably feels differently after their title in 2014. On another unrelated note I have never understood why some posters as well try and use the lockout as some sort of asterisk. If every team is playing the same number of games then there is no undue advantage or disadvantage that the champion enjoys. It's all fair. I am sure if Phil ever won a title after a lockout he would say it means more because the team didn't have enough time to prepare.

[Baller2014]

Spoiler:

I'm pretty sure people are claiming that. All decades and Ronny among them.

Seemed to me that everyone is acknowledging that Hakeem became a better player after 92. But I believe they're claiming that Hakeem's improvement as a player wasn't as big of a game-changer as the improvement in terms of coaching. He didn't magically become an MVP-caliber player overnight...the circumstances around him changed.

Instead of Don Chaney, you had Rudy T, who the Rockets had already seen improvement under when he took over halfway through 92. He restructured the offense to be more Hakeem-centric, and he built a system designed around ball movement and spacing. Hakeem makes improvements to his own game in terms of his passing and reading defenses. Now, Hakeem would have certainly looked better either way even if Don Chaney remained the coach, but I don't believe he would have all of a sudden been an MVP candidate if it wasn't for Rudy T actually designing an effective system around his talent (which is something that should be expected from every coach).

They're basically just inventing a narrative (his coach taught him a way to play better, in a way his previous coaches couldn't do, even though one of them was an excellent coach in Bill Fitch, arguably better than Rudy in fact). This is why you can't judge people off how their careers might have gone, no more than we can rate Nash higher because he "could" have been used better sooner. Maybe so, but it never happened, just like Len Bias never lived, Kidd didn't develop a 3 until late in his career, Coleman never had a good attitude and Walton couldn't stay healthy. Thems the breaks.

Spoiler:

(when your comparison is Larry Bird who turned a 29 win team into a 61 win team as a rookie)

You keep saying this, but then this leads to the obvious question in that case...did Larry Bird never improve from his rookie year? Was 1980 Larry Bird's peak in that case?

Because his supporting cast obviously gets a lot better as his career progresses (Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, Dennis Johnson, Danny Ainge, etc.), and the Celtics never win much more than 61 games in a season (they peak at 67 wins in 1986). So using this logic, it would make sense to say that Bird never got better as a player after his rookie year...and in fact, he probably regressed, since his supporting cast got a lot better, but he still couldn't push the team much further.

I think it makes much more sense to believe that there was a lot more going on to the Celtics' improvement in 1980 than simply the addition of Larry Bird. Yes, Larry Bird was probably the most significant factor, but he was far from the only major one, and it's pretty disingenuous to keep saying he took a 29-win team to 61 wins as a rookie, because that's not what happened.

Oh, Bird improved alright. It's just the law of diminishing returns kicks in around 60 games. You could add Shaq to the 1996 Bulls, and on paper they should go 82-0 (cos Shaq is worth 10 games), but that's not how the NBA works. Teams lose games in the regular season grind, just because they were tired, unfocused, the other team got hot, because you're on a back to back, etc. That's why very few teams have ever won more than 65 games... the law of diminishing returns kicks in. Where Bird's improvement (and his team's improvement) became apparent was in things like the playoff outcomes.

[therealbig3]

So if Bird's 1980 Celtics were basically "maxed out" when they hit 61 wins...doesn't that obviously mean that the team around Bird is pretty damn good, and that he DIDN'T singlehandedly turn them around from 29 wins to 61 wins?

Otherwise, if you honestly believe that Bird was the only significant reason worth mentioning for that turnaround...he should be your far and away GOAT.

[Baller2014]

So if Bird's 1980 Celtics were basically "maxed out" when they hit 61 wins...doesn't that obviously mean that the team around Bird is pretty damn good, and that he DIDN'T singlehandedly turn them around from 29 wins to 61 wins?

Actually it would mean the opposite, that Bird might have been worth more than 32 wins, but that they maxed out at 61. It's also more impressive when players turn bad teams into contenders than when they turn bad teams into mediocre teams (even if the presumed "win difference" is the same), because every extra win you get after a certain point becomes harder. Again, this is the law of diminishing returns in effect. I already broke down the differences between the 79 and 80 Celtics sans Bird, in numerous posts, so I'm not sure why you think it was his team mates doing it... the evidence suggests they had little to do with it, and were substantially the same calibre of support cast as the previous season; the dominant difference was Bird.

Bird's peak is among the GOAT peaks, but there are others who did comparable things, and those guys have more longevity. I just don't think Hakeem's longevity and inconsistent prime is enough to topple Bird. That doesn't make me down on Hakeem, I've got him up next anyway.

[JordansBulls]

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1336694&start=198

If between Hakeem and Bird, then I feel that Hakeem did much better while being the favorite in series and also was much better on the road in series in the playoffs. Not to mention Hakeem did bring an organization that never won multiple titles and when a comparison is fairly close that matters.

Vote: Hakeem Olajuwon

[PaulieWal]

Not to mention Hakeem did bring an organization that never won multiple titles and when a comparison is fairly close that matters.

Why does that matter? I would say that it doesn't matter at all. Players have no control over which organization drafts them. If the next GOAT is drafted by a team which has already won multiple titles, MJ doesn't get bonus points in the comparison for "leading an organization that never won to titles". I don't see the relevancy of that when comparing the level at which two players played.

[JordansBulls]

Not to mention Hakeem did bring an organization that never won multiple titles and when a comparison is fairly close that matters.

Why does that matter? I would say that it doesn't matter at all. Players have no control over which organization drafts them. If the next GOAT is drafted by a team which has already won multiple titles, MJ doesn't get bonus points in the comparison for "leading an organization that never won to titles". I don't see the relevancy of that when comparing the level at which two players played.

It matters when the comparison is close overall, in this case that is the case. If it is a no brainer it does not matter.

[PaulieWal]

Not to mention Hakeem did bring an organization that never won multiple titles and when a comparison is fairly close that matters.

Why does that matter? I would say that it doesn't matter at all. Players have no control over which organization drafts them. If the next GOAT is drafted by a team which has already won multiple titles, MJ doesn't get bonus points in the comparison for "leading an organization that never won to titles". I don't see the relevancy of that when comparing the level at which two players played.

It matters when the comparison is close overall, in this case that is the case. If it is a no brainer it does not matter.

That's the point though. It doesn't matter if the comparison is close or not. Bird and Hakeem got drafted by the franchises they did but that doesn't matter in a player comparison. Even if the comparison is close the deciding factor or one of the factors can't be "leading a franchise to a title" because that's irrelevant to their level of play on the court.

[DQuinn1575]

(when your comparison is Larry Bird who turned a 29 win team into a 61 win team as a rookie)

You keep saying this, but then this leads to the obvious question in that case...did Larry Bird never improve from his rookie year? Was 1980 Larry Bird's peak in that case?

Because his supporting cast obviously gets a lot better as his career progresses (Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, Dennis Johnson, Danny Ainge, etc.), and the Celtics never win much more than 61 games in a season (they peak at 67 wins in 1986). So using this logic, it would make sense to say that Bird never got better as a player after his rookie year...and in fact, he probably regressed, since his supporting cast got a lot better, but he still couldn't push the team much further.

I think it makes much more sense to believe that there was a lot more going on to the Celtics' improvement in 1980 than simply the addition of Larry Bird. Yes, Larry Bird was probably the most significant factor, but he was far from the only major one, and it's pretty disingenuous to keep saying he took a 29-win team to 61 wins as a rookie, because that's not what happened.

Top 5 in minutes played

80 Celtics

Bird
Archibald
Cowens
Ford
Maxwell

1979

Archibald
Cowens
Ford
Maxwell
Judkins


Only new starter was Bird - Archibald did play a lot more minutes and deserves some credit as he played better, but other 3 played similarly with slightly less minutes. Sixth and seventh men were ML Carr and Rick Robey, so it wasn't a spectacular bench by any means.


Hakeem and Bird each joined 29 win teams - Bird's team added no other new starters and finished 13 games better than Hakeem

Bird came into the league a much more finished and advanced player than Hakeem. Hakeem only had 3 years of organized ball in the US, and was 18 min/ 8ppg/6 reb his first year. As a result, Bird was much better his first few years than Hakeem. Eventually Hakeem improved, and became a great star. But Bird was top 5 player in the league from the moment he arrived until injuries took their toll. Hakeem was probably a top 10 player until the early 90s.


He really "only" dominated Robinson in the 6 playoff games
http://bkref.com/tiny/vnOXR

In the regular season - 42 games, their rebounding and blocks were dead even, but Hakeem only shot 44% against 49% for Robinson.

He was playing great defense, but so were other guys -he "only" got 5 first team all-defense picks. Say what you will, but coaches watching the regular season picked them, and Hakeem didn't play as well in the regular season as he did in the playoffs.


But in the playoffs Hakeem had 2 remarkable years -

[DQuinn1575]

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1336694&start=198

If between Hakeem and Bird, then I feel that Hakeem did much better while being the favorite in series and also was much better on the road in series in the playoffs. Not to mention Hakeem did bring an organization that never won multiple titles and when a comparison is fairly close that matters.

Vote: Hakeem Olajuwon

The logic is penalizing Bird for playing better in the regular season than Hakeem.

Hakeem doesn't play as well in the regular season, doesn't get hca, is considered the underdog. Hakeem plays well for the playoffs and gets lauded.

[Baller2014]

Tiny played better, Cowens played worse than ever before. I'd call that an even trade in terms of impact. The support cast in 1980 was the same quality as 1979 roughly, it was the addition of Bird that made the difference.

Lastly, I understand that people have to use their own criteria, etc, and I haven't called anyone out before on their criteria (even when I disagree with it violently). But when someone like Jordanbulls is using such absurd (non-basketball) criteria, I mean, I really feel we should be evaluating whether he should be voting in this project. HCA is bad enough, but to give people points based on how bad/good their organisation was decades earlier clearly has nothing to do with how good a player was. How can such criteria be valid. If I posted "my criteria is whichever player I found to be more charismatic and sexier" people would be demanding I be kicked off the project, but Jordanbulls bizarre criteria (that have no relationship to player quality) goes unchallenged. I mean come on, how good your organisation used to be decades ago is clearly irrelevant.

[JordansBulls]

Why does that matter? I would say that it doesn't matter at all. Players have no control over which organization drafts them. If the next GOAT is drafted by a team which has already won multiple titles, MJ doesn't get bonus points in the comparison for "leading an organization that never won to titles". I don't see the relevancy of that when comparing the level at which two players played.

It matters when the comparison is close overall, in this case that is the case. If it is a no brainer it does not matter.

That's the point though. It doesn't matter if the comparison is close or not.

How is that not important?

[90sAllDecade]

So if Bird's 1980 Celtics were basically "maxed out" when they hit 61 wins...doesn't that obviously mean that the team around Bird is pretty damn good, and that he DIDN'T singlehandedly turn them around from 29 wins to 61 wins?

Otherwise, if you honestly believe that Bird was the only significant reason worth mentioning for that turnaround...he should be your far and away GOAT.

This was addressed last thread, I agree with you.

Spoiler:

Bird's rookie year record with the Celtics is misleading, he had tremendously improved team support from the previous year. I'll repost this:

"There is no doubt rookie Bird had a huge impact and was the big difference for that team’s turnaround. He was the only new player in the starting lineup, but there’s more to the story and he did have help.

That year the team had gotten a new coach after changing coaches four times in the past two years. They had a bad owner who was destroying the team and Red Auerbach was so angry with his bad moves he threatened to leave until the owner sold the team to a new owner Bird’s rookie year. (One bad move was trading Bob McAdoo after 20 games the year before.)

This gave Red more control over decisions and he quickly restructured the team better. Bench players aging Jojo White, Rowe were gone and he added ML Carr for leadership/intangibles and Henderson on the bench. Cedric Maxwell was also started hitting his stride as a third year player.

He did make Cowens and Tiny better, but they were still all-star talents that year and future HOFers and Maxwell was great all year and in the playoffs (compare Bird’s advanced stats RS and playoffs with Cedric ‘80), that’s talent.

Tiny was #2-4 in the league in assists those years, second team all nba, Cowens made the 2nd all-defensive team in 80’(I don’t put much stock in accolades at all, but they can provide broad strokes of their play contribution)

For their careers Tiny was a 6x All star, a scoring champion (top 3 four times), top 10 in assists 7 years (and lead it once), and HOFer. Cowens was a former league MVP, a top rated defender, 8x All Star, ROY, had already won 2 championships and HOFer. They were both 31 Bird’s rookie year.

Grounded for two seasons, the Celtics are perched high atop the NBA standings. The big difference: a rare Bird of a rookie

..In that one nightmare season the Celtics went through two coaches ( Satch Sanders and Dave Cowens), tried 21 different starting lineups and shuttled 18 different players in and out of town.

..The depth of Boston's decline cannot be overemphasized. It was as if by blowing first-round draft choices year after year on the fabled Clarence Glover, Steve Downing, Glenn McDonald, Tom Boswell and Norm Cook, someone in the Celtics' front office was trying to make up to the rest of the league for all the years of Boston's dominance. Even trades that had seemed promising—deals for name players like Sidney Wicks, Curtis Rowe, Billy Knight, Marvin Barnes and Bob McAdoo—had caused only problems. "My first season here we had seven guys who were All-Stars," says third-year Forward Cedric Maxwell, himself a budding star with a league-leading .667 field-goal shooting percentage. "We had more talent then than we do now—superstars at every position—but a lot of them were misfits. Just because you put five guys together on the floor doesn't mean they're going to play well together."

The Celtics certainly proved that. The height of their front-office folly came last winter when John Y. Brown, then the club's owner—he has since got himself elected governor of Kentucky on the skirttails of his bride, Phyllis George—swapped three first-round draft choices to New York for McAdoo. Auerbach was displeased but philosophical. "What are you gonna do?" he says now. "Criticize the owner? Besides, people wouldn't have believed me if I told them how dumb this guy was. He'll probably try to trade the Kentucky Derby for the Indianapolis 500."

Inept as they seemed through these dreadful times, the Celtics did manage to do one thing right. In the 1978 draft Auerbach selected Larry Bird…There are many ways to gauge Bird's importance to the Celtics, but probably the simplest and most telling is to point out that he is the only new face in the starting lineup that finished the season for Boston last season, replacing McAdoo.

..Fitch's job was made easier when the Celtics signed free-agent Forward M. L. Carr from Detroit and then unloaded McAdoo as compensation in the bargain. Only two NBA players had more playing time last season than Carr, and he led the league in steals, but it was as much for his disposition—which is resolutely cheerful—as his skills that Boston went after him.

..It's unlikely that there was another player on the Celtics' roster whose confidence needed restoring more desperately than Archibald. He was one of the premier guards in the game when he ruptured an Achilles' tendon in 1977. Last season, his first in Boston, he was coming back from a layoff of a year and a half, and he was both rusty and not-so-tiny.

http://www.si.com/vault/1979/12/03/8242 ... f-a-rookie

So rookie Bird, who had a great impact, also got a team with much greater stability and leadership in a new coach, new owner, Auerbach with greater control again, an improved bench & intangibles, a third year Cedric Maxwell and a healthy Tiny Archibald.

Tiny and Cowens both made the all star game that year. All these factors aided Bird’s team success imo, so he benefited from better help his rookie year too versus what Hakeem succeeded with."

Spoiler:

This is a reasonable argument imo, But I disagree with them not having an significant impact though.

Cowens and Tiny weren't the same players but still good enough to become all stars relative to competition that year, Cowens numbers were comparable to other all stars like Jack Sikma and Kermit Washington that year.

Tiny was #2 in the NBA in assists that year and his offensive numbers were comparable to another all star in Michael Ray Richardson that year who lead the league in assists.

Rookie Bird & teammate Cedric Maxwell comparison during 79-80 season:

Regular season




Playoffs




http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1980.html

The article give ML Carr credit for adding better leadership and intangiables to the locker room and new coach Bill Fitch for restoring a firm hand to Boston:

Not until training camp was Fitch convinced that Cowens was willing
to pay his price. "I only had Dave's word that he was going to bend
it to win," Fitch says. "He had to prove himself like everybody
else."

Fitch didn't leave any fan clubs behind him in Cleveland, but after
two seasons of chaos a firm hand was clearly needed in Boston, and
the Celtics seemed to welcome Fitch's tough discipline. "Getting
Fitch was the smartest move I ever made," says Auerbach. "He's a
disciple of mine, you know. He studied the way I coached and
everything."

Fitch's job was made easier when the Celtics signed free-agent
Forward M. L. Carr from Detroit and then unloaded McAdoo as
compensation in the bargain. Only two NBA players had more playing
time last season than Carr, and he led the league in steals, but it
was as much for his disposition--which is resolutely cheerful--as
his skills that Boston went after him.

...That didn't look like a particularly good bet when Carr reported to
early camp in September. Not wanting to risk an injury before he
had signed a contract, Carr had taken the summer off and came to
camp absurdly overweight. He wasn't a particularly impressive sight
in the Celtics' early preseason games. "I think if they hadn't
known me," Carr says, "they would have wondered what kind of
mistake they had made. We went down to New York for an exhibition
game and I was wobbling up and down the floor so badly they were
calling me Fat Boy, but I was just keeping my money tied around my
waist because I didn't know what the economy was going to do." By
the opening game of the regular season Carr had either slimmed down
or made a big deposit in a savings & loan because he came out of
the blocks like a rocket--a svelte rocket--and has given the
Celtics 14.3 points a game and incalculable leadership.

http://www.si.com/vault/1979/12/03/8242 ... f-a-rookie

ML Carr also took a reduced role in Boston, he had his best year by far the year right before joining rookie Bird:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... rml01.html

I think Bird was the catalyst for sure, but to give him the credit for that team's success singularly is not putting things in context imo.

[Baller2014]

Those points were all rebutted last thread too, and were clearly illogical. For instance, blaming the owner and implying (but not sticking to) the claim the coaches were no good.

Spoiler:

Ok, to cover these points (yet again):

Bird's rookie year record with the Celtics is misleading, he had tremendously improved team support from the previous year. I'll repost this:

"There is no doubt rookie Bird had a huge impact and was the big difference for that team’s turnaround. He was the only new player in the starting lineup, but there’s more to the story and he did have help.

That year the team had gotten a new coach after changing coaches four times in the past two years. They had a bad owner who was destroying the team and Red Auerbach was so angry with his bad moves he threatened to leave until the owner sold the team to a new owner Bird’s rookie year. (One bad move was trading Bob McAdoo after 20 games the year before.)

Ok, so already there's several weird points being used here, which are typical of the inconsistency in the anti-Bird argument:
1) The coaching argument doesn't hold up, and the way you've worded it kind of gives away the difficulty you're having explaining it. You say the Celtics "changed coaches repeatedly". And why was that? Because the team sucked, and the coaches were all unable to improve it. And so, as often happens, ownership fires the coaches for failing to perform. You don't actually claim the coaching was bad, though it's implied in what you've written, and if the coaching was good then why did the teams play so badly? You're basically suggesting the evil spectre of the owner was somehow making the team lose, in spite of good players and good coaches, which is a bizarre argument. Was Cowens a bad coach? It doesn't seem like it, because he led the Celtics to a better record than Sanders. Was Sanders also a bad coach then? That doesn't seem likely either, in the previous season he led the Celtics to a better record than Heinsohn did (and nobody thinks he was a bad coach). Sometimes a duck is just a duck. The Celtics were a bad team, that's why they played badly.
2) The same "let's have it both ways" opportunism is clear in your claim about McAdoo. When I tried to use McAdoo's 20 games in 1979 as a positive for the Celtics, which they didn't have in Bird's rookie year, I was told (not entirely fairly) that McAdoo was garbage in 1979. Now we have you invoking McAdoo being traded as an example of a bad move (it wasn't, it led to the Celtics getting McHale and Parish).

This gave Red more control over decisions and he quickly restructured the team better. Bench players aging Jojo White, Rowe were gone and he added ML Carr for leadership/intangibles and Henderson on the bench. Cedric Maxwell was also started hitting his stride as a third year player.

He did make Cowens and Tiny better, but they were still all-star talents that year and future HOFers and Maxwell was great all year and in the playoffs (compare Bird’s advanced stats RS and playoffs with Cedric ‘80), that’s talent.

Jo Jo White was aging, but still a positive player. His departure is a bad thing, not a good thing. Maxwell's stats in 1979 were better than in 1980, he appears to have been the same player. Maybe you thought he "looked better" next to Bird, most players did, but that's to Bird's credit not Maxwell's. Henderson played 14mpg, Carr played 24mpg. These guys were role players. The Celtics lost Jo Jo and Rowe to retirement, and got Carr and Henderson instead. I don't see the big difference there to be honest. A few role players on the end of the bench shifted around, but the core of the team was the same.

You call Tiny and Cowens all-stars, but they were picked because Bird had turned the team into a contender and voters usually feel like the best team should get a few all-stars, not because they were legitimate all-stars. Neither had made it the previous year, Tiny hadn't made it since 1976, and were regarded as finished until Bird came and transformed the team (please, stop looking at their career achievements to try and value them as played in 79 and 80, you tried the same ridiculous thing with the Spurs in 2003, calling D.Rob, Parker and Manu HoF team mates because of their career play). Tiny played better in 1980, but Cowens played substantially worse than the previous year (indeed, he was so washed up he retired after the season). That looks like an even trade to me.

Basically the core of the team was the same. The deck chairs on the titanic got shuffled around a bit, but she was the same sinking ship until Bird came.

[90sAllDecade]

Re-posted for posterity and unfortunately necessity.

Spoiler:

Team Support comparison Larry Bird vs Hakeem:

Larry Bird
13 year career

Years with 1 All Star Player: x13
Two All Star players: x10

*K. McHale (All NBA 1st team x1, Def. 1st team x3, Def. 2nd team x3, Sixth Man of the Year x2)
R. Parish (All NBA 2nd team x 1, All NBA 3rd team x1)
D. Johnson (Def. 1st team x1, 2nd team x3)
B. Walton - age 33 (Sixth Man of the Year x1)
D. Cowens - age 31 (Def. 2nd team x1)
C. Maxwell (Finals MVP x1)


Hakeem
17 year career

Years with 1 All Star Player: x7
Two All Star players: x1

*R. Sampson (All NBA 2nd team x1)
C. Drexler - age 32 (All NBA 3rd team x1)

Just look at Bird's long list of playoff failures.

1980- Averaged a .511 TS% in the postseason. In game 5 vs. the Sixers, he shot poorly, 5-19 with just 12 points, as the Celtics lost the game. His man (Dr. J) averaged 25 PPG in this series. His team loses in 5 games despite having HCA and winning 61 games. Had a 18.3 PER in the postseason

1981- Has a .532 TS% in the postseason. He had a bad finals where he averaged just 15 PPG on .419 shooting and .460 TS%.

1982- PPG average dropped from 22.9 PPG to 17.8 PPG. He has an embarrassing .474 TS% in the playoffs. He averaged a pedestrian 18.3 PPG against the Sixers. Averages 17 PPG in the final 2 games of the series. The Celtics lose again with HCA. The Celtics won 63 games and had the #1 SRS in the league. Has a 17.9 PER in the postseason.

1983- The Celtics get swept by the Bucks. The Celtics win 56 games and had the #2 SRS in the league and lose again with HCA. Bird plays awful again. .478 TS%. His PPG average drops 2 PPG in the playoffs. Bird missed a game in the series but that game happened to be the closest one (Celtics lose by 4). In the 3 other games, the Celtics lose by 14.3 PPG with Bird on the court.

1984- Great playoffs. Averaged 27-14-4 in the Finals and had a .607 TS% in the playoffs. First great playoff of his career. Celtics win the title over the Lakers.

1985- Celtics make the finals, but Bird's numbers drop in the playoffs. His PPG drops by 2.8 PPG, Reb by 1.2 Reb, and AST by 0.7 AST. Had an average .536 TS% in the postseason. Bird plays even worse in the finals. His PPG dropped 4.9 PPG, his Reb 1.7 Reb, and AST by 1.6 AST in the finals compared to his regular season average. His Finals TS% is just .527. Not only that, but Celtics finish with 63 wins and lose once again with HCA a constant theme in Bird's career. This is the first time in Celtics history they lost in the finals with HCA.

1986- Great year. His best year ever. Wins the title. .615 TS% in the postseason and amazing finals.

1987- I think this is his most admirable playoffs up until the finals. The Celtics were quite banged up this year. Averaged 27-10-7 in the postseason with .577 TS%. Though his numbers in the finals dropped off once again. His PPG was 3.9 PPG down from the regular season, AST down by 2.1 AST and his TS% was just .534. In game 6, Bird scored just 16 points on 6-16 (.375) shooting. In the final 3 games of this series, Bird averaged just 20 PPG on .377 shooting and .492 TS% with 3.7 TOV. This is the first time Bird has played without HCA in the playoffs and his team loses.

1988- Bird's PPG drops by 5.4 PPG, Reb by 0.5 Reb. Bird shoots an awful 40-114 (.351) against the Pistons. Has a mediocre .538 TS% and 20.2 PER in the playoffs. The Celtics had HCA and the #1 SRS in the league and you probably guessed what happened next, Larry Bird loses with HCA once again.

1989- Injured doesn't play in the postseason.

1990- Bird shoots .539 TS% and has 3.6 TOV as the Celtics once again you guessed it, lose with HCA.

1991- In the first round, his team needs to go 5 vs. the 41 win Pacers. His PPG drop by 2.3 PPG and his Rebounds and Assists also drop quite a bit. Has a .490 TS% 15.8 PER in the playoffs. Against the Pistons Bird averages 13.4 PPG on .446 TS%. His 56 win team played with you guessed it HCA and loses with it.

1992- Doesn't play in the first round as the Celtics sweep the Pacers. In round 2, his team goes 7 against the Cavs, but Bird plays in 4 games and his team was 1-3 in those games. Averages a pathetic 11.3 PPG and 4.5 Reb which are 8.4 PPG and 5.2 Reb down from his regular season average. He has a .514 TS% and 16.4 PER in the postseason.


So out of 12 years, you get 9 years under .540 TS%, 5 under .520 TS%, and 3 under .500 TS%. From 80-83, he had a 19.9 playoff PER. In that span, Johnny Moore, Franklin Edwards, Gus Williams, and Bob Lanier all had better playoff PER and WS/48. Teammates Parish, McHale, Tiny Archibald, and Cedric Maxwell had better TS% in that span. From 88-92, he had a 18.8 PER which is 25th among players with 10 playoff games played. Players who had better playoff PER's in that span include Fat Lever, Terry Cummings, Roy Tarpley, Cedric Ceballos, and Sarunas Marciulionis. His teammates Reggie Lewis and Kevin McHale had better playoff PER's in that span.

With Bird you get a nice 4 year run that had 4 straight finals appearances but outside of that you get a 4 year span of .505 TS% (80-83) and a .525 TS% span (88-92). In 12 years, you get 7 losses with HCA. Basically out of Bird's 13 year career, you have 1 injury season and 3 non-descript postseasons at the end of his plus some playoff disappointments early in his career.

[PaulieWal]

It matters when the comparison is close overall, in this case that is the case. If it is a no brainer it does not matter.

That's the point though. It doesn't matter if the comparison is close or not.

How is that not important?

Did you not read my full post? You quoted one line. I already explained to you why that's not important.

Even if the comparison is close the deciding factor or one of the factors can't be "leading a franchise to a title" because that's irrelevant to their level of play on the court.

[90sAllDecade]

True, and this is true for George Karl teams in general. Neil Paine wrote a great article on the subject once: http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/9250250/nba-why-george-karl-nba-most-disappointing-playoff-coaches

Here's the article for those who don't have insider:

Spoiler:

Another year, another first-round departure for the Denver Nuggets. With their defeat in six games at the hands of the Golden State Warriors last week, the Nuggets now have lost in the Western Conference quarterfinals nine times in the past 10 years. Making the playoffs in 10 consecutive seasons is a remarkable accomplishment in and of itself -- it's the NBA's second-longest active streak (behind the Spurs' 16 straight postseason appearances) -- but that's cold comfort for fans in the Mile High City after another unsatisfying spring.

Making things tougher to swallow is the fact that Denver wasn't an overwhelming underdog in most of the series it lost. The Nuggets had home-court advantage in three of those 10 first-round matchups -- including this season's battle with the Warriors -- and they finished the regular season within five wins (or better) of their opponents in three of their other seven series. The Nuggets' futility defies probability; by chance alone, you'd think they would stumble into more than one series victory in their past 10. In fact, we can use probability to quantify how disappointing Denver has been in the past decade of the postseason -- and what it says about their coach, George Karl.


To judge the odds of one team beating another in any given game, we need to regress the teams' records to the mean and apply Bill James' "Log5" formula to the regressed winning percentages (factoring in the league's typical home-court advantage of roughly 60 percent). Using that same logic, we can stretch those single-game probabilities over an entire series to estimate the probability of one team beating another in a playoff encounter.

For instance, the Nuggets, who won 10 more games than Golden State during the 2012-13 regular season and held home-court advantage, would be expected to beat the Warriors 75.7 percent of the time in a seven-game series, according to the method outlined above. That they didn't represents a loss of 0.757 points of series win probability -- having started with a probability of 75.7 percent (0.757 expected series wins), they fell to 0 percent when they lost the series. That mark, minus-0.757, then goes on Karl's record as a coach, representing more than three-quarters of a series lost below expectations.

If you do this for every coach in every series since the NBA expanded to a 16-team playoff bracket before the 1983-84 season, it turns out Karl does not fare well at all. The teams Karl coached won 13 of their 35 playoff series against an expectation of 16.9 series wins, for a total of nearly four full series wins below expectation. Not only is that the worst mark among all active coaches, but it's actually worse than any other NBA coach to helm a playoff team in the last 30 years -- and it's not particularly close. The second- and third-most disappointing coaches in that span, Mike Fratello and Lenny Wilkens, were each only 2.7 series wins below expectation, more than a full series' worth of wins better than Karl.

Here are the most and least disappointing coaches on a series level since 1983-84:

Rank Coach Series W L Wins Above Expected
1 Phil Jackson 65 56 9 +14.0
2 Rudy Tomjanovich 17 12 5 +4.7
3 Gregg Popovich 39 28 11 +2.8
4 Larry Brown 32 18 14 +2.7
5 Jeff Van Gundy 17 8 9 +2.1
... -- -- -- -- --
96 Bob Hill 8 3 5 -1.6
97 Flip Saunders 19 8 11 -2.4
98 Lenny Wilkens 23 8 15 -2.7
99 Mike Fratello 14 3 11 -2.8
100 George Karl 35 13 22 -3.9

Of course, viewing things like these, at the series level, is about as zoomed-out a perspective as you can get on coaching performance. Perhaps if we look at it from a game-to-game perspective, using the same matchup probabilities but only assessing whether a coach's team performed above or below expectations in each game, would give a more nuanced look at which coaches live up to what we'd predict from their teams' regular-season records.

But even if we take that approach, Karl is the NBA's most disappointing playoff coach since 1984, winning 11 fewer games than he should have, according to the game-by-game win probabilities of his teams. It's a closer race this time, with Wilkens leapfrogging Fratello and finishing within less than a game of Karl in the race for the most upsetting playoff coaching performance of the past three decades, but Karl stands at the bottom of the list no matter how you view things.

Rank Coach Games W L Wins Above Expected
1 Phil Jackson 333 229 104 +40.4
2 Chuck Daly 126 75 51 +10.2
3 Gregg Popovich 199 122 77 +9.6
4 Rudy Tomjanovich 90 51 39 +9.0
5 Larry Brown 172 92 80 +7.6
... -- -- -- -- --
96 Flip Saunders 98 47 51 -5.3
97 Mike D'Antoni 59 26 33 -5.8
98 Mike Fratello 62 20 42 -8.3
99 Lenny Wilkens 114 45 69 -10.1
100 George Karl 185 80 105 -11.0

The only saving grace is that Karl is not the most disappointing coach when you take Championship Leverage Index into account, an ignominious distinction that instead belongs to Rick Adelman. But that's mainly a function of the very topic of this article: Karl's early postseason exits. Paradoxically, in order to do badly in a metric weighted toward Championship Leverage, you need to first navigate deep enough into the playoffs in order for the Leverage Index to get high. Adelman's teams have underwhelmed relative to expectations in the playoffs, and they've also done it at critical times late in the postseason; Karl's teams never even make it that far.

Disappointing playoff coaches by Championship Leverage Index
Rank Coach Games Wins Above Expected Leveraged WAE Diff
1 Phil Jackson 333 +40.4 +63.6 +23.2
2 Rudy Tomjanovich 90 +9.0 +17.4 +8.4
3 Pat Riley 253 +3.7 +11.6 +8.0
4 Gregg Popovich 199 +9.6 +16.7 +7.1
5 Lenny Wilkens 114 -10.1 -6.4 +3.8
... -- -- -- -- --
96 Larry Bird 52 +3.0 -2.6 -5.6
97 Jerry Sloan 196 -4.8 -10.6 -5.8
98 Stan Van Gundy 87 +2.1 -3.9 -6.0
99 Mike Brown 83 +3.2 -2.8 -6.0
100 Rick Adelman 157 +0.4 -8.3 -8.7

It's possible to construct numerous theories about why Karl's teams underperform, including conspiracy theories about him doing a deficient job of giving minutes to his most "productive" players. But I think a better, if counterintuitive, explanation is that he's actually quite a good coach (and that there's a reason ESPN's panel of experts voted him their 2012-13 Coach of the Year in a landslide).

A few months ago, we looked at which teams had gotten "lucky" in a variety of different ways, and whether there was some aspect of coaching that caused the apparent luck to actually be statistically significant (and therefore sustainable) instead of random noise. Only a select few coaches could maintain a level of positive luck that proved to truly be significant, names like Rick Carlisle, Phil Jackson, Chuck Daly and Pat Riley. But do you know who else was on the list? Karl.

That means Karl was able to significantly improve his teams' regular-season win-loss records above and beyond the underlying talent of the players he was working with. In essence, he's one of the best coaches in the game at extracting extra wins out of his rosters, and that fact also offers a possible explanation for why his teams disappoint come playoff time. Karl's coaching causes his teams' records to be inflated relative to their actual talent, leading to miscalculated seedings and then apparent underachievement in the postseason.

But what this system -- and many fans -- view as underachieving may actually just be playing to the natural talent level of Karl's rosters, rosters that were not as good as their records would indicate, but overachieved in the regular season. (This is the same explanation frequently offered in defense of former manager Bobby Cox in baseball, whose Atlanta Braves often won far more than expected during the regular season but flopped just as frequently in the playoffs).

It's of no solace to Denver fans, who have suffered through a decade of consistency both in making the playoffs and failing once there, but it could just be that Karl's regular-season coaching ability is his own worst enemy in the postseason.

This is a great article, but I just wanted to point something out to bring context to these statistics he's writing about:

To judge the odds of one team beating another in any given game, we need to regress the teams' records to the mean and apply Bill James' "Log5" formula to the regressed winning percentages (factoring in the league's typical home-court advantage of roughly 60 percent). Using that same logic, we can stretch those single-game probabilities over an entire series to estimate the probability of one team beating another in a playoff encounter.

Now, I may be wrong, but it sounds like he's weighting his stats more based on winning or losing on the road (which makes sense though), but which would make Rudy T look like a genius and inflating his comparative numbers since Hakeem, and his team won a championship on the road. With Hakeem's decline so went Rudy's playoff success, the road or otherwise.

It seems to say Rudy is better than Pops, Riley or Daly which is misleading imo considering their sustained comparative career success, and some with different rosters.

[magicmerl]

Re-posted for posterity and unfortunately necessity.

I really wish you'd use spoiler tags for your copy and paste quotes.

Otherwise it's just spam.

[90sAllDecade]

Re-posted for posterity and unfortunately necessity.

I really wish you'd use spoiler tags for your copy and paste quotes.

Otherwise it's just spam.

That's a fair point, done.

I hate recycling arguments honestly, but it's necessary on occasion for new readers.