RealGM Top 100 List #8

[E-Balla]

So when they are contemporaries, Bird rushes in the larger sample size (the regular season). For the playoffs, was either the East or the West unusually bad? The East has been weak for the last 15 years or so, which is a factor in why KG/Shaq/Duncan did not make the finals more than they did (because they had to go through each other). Did Magic or Bird play in the 'big boys' conference which could be a factor in their postseason results?

Well that's why for Magic I kinda ignored how he played against the creampuff teams in my sample and I focused on the great teams he played and like teams they played. Magic still outplayed Bird in those series. I don't give magic credit for just making it the the Finals and CF yearly but I give him credit for laying well in the Finals and CF.

After the 82 regular season being even AND the 84 playoffs being close the post lost all credibility to me.
82 magic was 3-4 guard in the league according to players and writers.

84 finals were lost by tragic Johnson.
Lakers should have been world champs


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

And why is that? Care to expound on their play or contribute in any way to a discussion?

[Doctor MJ]

And of course that's what happened in Boston. As I've said before, it might have been called The Big 3 as a marketing term, but it really wasn't, not by Heatle standards at least. People's assessment of what that supporting cast was before the '07-08 season started wasn't nearly enough to make it a contender

Otherwise awesome post but this is just not true. If this was your experience then the group with which you were hashing this out with his highly questionable, either vis-a-vis agenda or just lack of understanding. The consensus in virtually any circle I personally recall was that this was a team with 3 top 10(ish?) players. Perhaps KG was done as a franchise player and Pierce/Ray were thought to be in decline, but nobody thought they weren't still mid all-star level players. No team throughout history combining talents who posted...

22/13/4
25/6/4
26/5/5 (goat shooter/offensive synergy player)

The year prior could ever not be conceived of as not stacked. People thought there might be issues in the same vein we thought "Wade and Lebron duplicate 2 much." But nobody foresaw a GOAT team, which is what they were. That is where they overshot expectations (first round stumbles against ATL notwithstanding).

The only other pre-season title picks I remember (that actually picked up traction) that year were San Antonio and Phoenix...

I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing. If what you're saying is that they overshot expectations but people still thought of them as one of 3 main contenders for the title, well, no that's not how it was. I know that out there in the world some thought this, but we have on record what popular authorities thought.

At ESPN, here's what the columnists predicted as champs:
8 - Spurs
5 - Suns
2 - Mavs
2 - Rockets
1 - Pistons

(This doesn't include ESPN's resident Celtic homer who made clear it was between Spurs and Suns for him and didn't even mention the Celtics)

In the NBA GM's survey:
10 - Spurs
7 - Suns
4 - Mavs
2 - Pistons
1 each - Celtics, Rockets, Heat, Magic

As you can see, the Celtics only get mentioned once, quite possibly by the person in their own organization giving the GM vote.

They had less excitement going for them than the Rockets for example - which when you think about it makes plenty of sense, people were excited about the Rockets. What I'm trying to emphasize is that it's not that people weren't excited about the Celtics, but that people get excited about quite a few teams every year. If one of those teams ends up hitting on all cylinders then people might confuse that for people seeing it coming, but the proof is in the pudding: There are favorites who get picked by many people to win the title (Spurs and Suns), and then there are teams that people are merely interested in.

Perhaps part of the issue is that when I talk about Celtic predictions I give the impression that everyone was saying in a loud chorus "they can't possibly win!". That's not what I mean. What I mean is that in reality people didn't see the Big 3 form and say "That's it. With those 3 together, they are the team to beat." or anything close to that. People weren't sure how the team would come together, and this is true of any "new" team. As such there's a wide swath of possible outcomes that people wouldn't say were crazy for what might happen.

No one anywhere thought said that Boston was going to be a tier above everyone else in the league at the start of the year based on the way Garnett anchored the defense, and this is where the discussions just end for me when people don't acknowledge the shock of what happened.

[Basketballefan]

Why specifically do you feel this way? I'd be interested in a breakdown with your evidence/reasoning.

A good example would be Shaq, from 07-2011 he was no longer elite and a borderline all star player at best..yes his numbers might've been decent but he wasn't having a huge impact on his teams imo. I don't value those type of years very much..so if you can consider Shaq elite from his rookie year until 06 that's 14 elite seasons. So with that he would legitimately have better longevity than Magic or Bird. Duncan would as well. Or if you use Garnett as an example, he was elite probably from 00-09 i suppose..from 10-13' he was still a very good player but no one would've considered him a top 15 player in the league at that point. His years before 2000 are hardly worth mentioning. However i'm just trying to make the point that when you consider Magic's years at an MVP-level, it's long as anyone's or close to it. I'm not denying that his longevity isn't the greatest, i just don't think it's all that bad.

Shaq - Okay, that's understandable.
Duncan - That's fine, but which seasons do you consider to be elite?
Garnett - Disagree about 10-13. Those were still elite defensive seasons, by and large. I'm not sure if he'd be top 15, but I think we have to consider him.

Regarding Magic in particular, which seasons specifically do you feel he was playing at an MVP level? How many MVP level seasons, in terms of level of play, do you you think Hakeem had?

I have no problem with your opinion, just trying to understand where you're coming from here. Thanks for the response.

For Magic i think he was a legitimate Mvp candidate pretty much every year from 82-91, even if he didn't get 1st place votes all those years, he did get 1st place votes 8 of those years though. And won 3. For Hakeem i would say he was legitimately an MVP candidate from 92-97.

As for Duncan i consider his elite seasons 99-08, i think 2012-2013 are at least borderline elite.

As for Garnett in 2010 i can't consider him even top 20 that year, he was hobbled all year and only managed to put up 14 7 and then got abused by Gasol in the finals. I didn't consider that a good year for him. 2011 and 2012 were pretty good seasons, but in 2013 the Celtics were a 7th seed in the weak east and got bounced in round 1.

[ceiling raiser]

For Magic i think he was a legitimate Mvp candidate pretty much every year from 82-91, even if he didn't get 1st place votes all those years, he did get 1st place votes 8 of those years though. And won 3. For Hakeem i would say he was legitimately an MVP candidate from 92-97.

As for Duncan i consider his elite seasons 99-08, i think 2012-2013 are at least borderline elite.

As for Garnett in 2010 i can't consider him even top 20 that year, he was hobbled all year and only managed to put up 14 7 and then got abused by Gasol in the finals. I didn't consider that a good year for him. 2011 and 2012 were pretty good seasons, but in 2013 the Celtics were a 7th seed in the weak east and got bounced in round 1.

Thanks for elaborating on Duncan and KG.

So just to confirm, you have Magic as a better player each year from 82-86 than Hakeem was each year from 85-91?

[Basketballefan]

For Magic i think he was a legitimate Mvp candidate pretty much every year from 82-91, even if he didn't get 1st place votes all those years, he did get 1st place votes 8 of those years though. And won 3. For Hakeem i would say he was legitimately an MVP candidate from 92-97.

As for Duncan i consider his elite seasons 99-08, i think 2012-2013 are at least borderline elite.

As for Garnett in 2010 i can't consider him even top 20 that year, he was hobbled all year and only managed to put up 14 7 and then got abused by Gasol in the finals. I didn't consider that a good year for him. 2011 and 2012 were pretty good seasons, but in 2013 the Celtics were a 7th seed in the weak east and got bounced in round 1.

Thanks for elaborating on Duncan and KG.

So just to confirm, you have Magic as a better player each year from 82-86 than Hakeem was each year from 85-91?

Well at second glance i think there were probably a few other years that Hakeem was a legit MVP candidate such as 88-89 and possibly 86. But i think Magic had the bigger impact those years you mentioned.

[kayess]

Bird won 3 straight MVPs- isnt that separation in individual stats, while one could argue Magic's only 'separation' is team results?

Magic won 3 in 4 seasons and he was competing with peak Jordan and Barkley. Bird was competing with a pre-prime Magic, King for one year, and Dominique.

I know it sucks that one of these two guys may even finish at 10, but that's a function of earlier mistakes in who was voted in above them.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

LeBron? Hakeem (if it happens)?

[acrossthecourt]

I love how the Kg supporters ignore the fact that KG missed the playoffs 3 straight years out of his prime...tell me what top 10 player does that? You're telling me Duncan, LbJ, Shaq Bird, Magic or even Kobe would miss playoffs 3 years of their prime? His team wasn't great those years but neither was Kobe's inbetween Shaq and Pau and he still got in. Duncan had an old Drob, young Manu and Parker before they were all stars and were still in contention and even won one. Let's not forget all the 1st round sweeps Kg had, a lot of which he didnt play well. So basically KG arguably wasn't even a top 5 player from 05-07, not sure you can be top 5 if your team didn't even make playoffs.

Look, Kg is definetly a top 20 player all time, or even top 15 i'd have no isssue with but these claims that Kg is top 8 is getting absurd.

Kareem missed two years in a row in his prime in a smaller league and he's second.... One of those seasons Garnett hit 44 wins. For many guys that's a 6 or 7 seed.

Olajuwon missed one season too.

And yes, Duncan/LeBron/Shaq/Magic/Bird could miss three years in a row. There are four other guys on the court! NBA stars aren't worth 40 wins. It was easier to make the playoffs in the past, however, when there were less teams. Heck a team with a losing record made the finals.



One reason there's so little discussion here is that I think for many people it's obvious.

Magic

I think his five year peak is higher than anyone else's. A point guard with dazzling passes who was already efficient added a three-point shot and even shot 90% from the line. He was reaching perfection.

It's instructive that as Kareem aged, Magic took a hold of the team and they didn't slip offensively and reached some zeniths.

I have him by a hair over Bird because of some injury problems (self-inflicted too.)

Since I focus more on peak, I don't mind his career effectively ended at age 31. I feel that his peak is more effective than anyone else's, save for possibly Bird. Olajuwon has his defense, but his offense is overrated and his glory seasons last like two years. David Robinson topped out high, but he looks worse against better competition and he doesn't have longevity over Magic.

From '87 to '91 Magic assisted on nearly half his teammates field goals while being a shot creator himself with incredible efficiency, scoring in a multiple ways, while rebounding like a PF.

[Purch]

Ardee, what do you think about players that peaked later in their careers like Malone, Hakeem or Nash? Does that generally help their longevity case, especilly if they have high level seasons before that point?

[Texas Chuck]

Magic played at an all star level for 12 years, with many of them being at an Mvp level...stop acting like his longevity was garbage. People value those "extra years" too much, if you're still elite and are a big contributor on a contending team fine, but if you are just putting up decent numbers but aren't an elite player anymore then it's not a big deal to me. In other words extra seasons when a player is just stat padding don't add a ton of value. Magic's superstar longevity is as good as anyone's. That's a fact. Deal with it.

Can we stop with the notion that a player past his prime is stat-padding? I mean seriously. Unless you have an actual basis for an accusation of a specific player doing so can't we accept that a guy can still enjoy playing and still be a contributing player with out cynically thinking that he's trying to pile on stats to make the HoF or to impress some kids on a message board?

See my response to Fpliii in regards to that...perhaps i didn't word it the best way but all i'm saying is if you are putting up decent stats at a non-elite level i don't think it should bare a ton of weight in all time lists.

But why not? If Tim Duncan is giving you quality year after quality year after his defined "prime" why should we not take that into consideration when comparing him to a guy who doesnt? Or John Stockton? Or Jason Kidd? Or whomever. Positive contributions should matter regardless of when they occur.

Now if you choose to put more weight on their best seasons, then that's fine, but suggesting that a guy good enough to still contribute is somehow a stat-padder is ridiculous. If you are the Spurs would you honestly rather have had Duncan retire at the end of his prime? Of course not. So its not stat-padding its added value and it absolutely should be given at least some weight. I can promise you the Mavs were glad to have past his prime Jason Kidd in 2011. And Shawn Marion. Heck even Peja.

[ThunderDan9]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFamuwa96sM[/youtube]

That touch pass at the start makes me happier than my ex ever did. (Saying things like that probably has to do with it, but still)

Game 3 of the same WCF series (a key match, obviously)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3eIW_ujmhE[/youtube]

Basketball at its finest.
A passing clinic... then he buries the dagger to finish the job. The quality of these passes is amazing... and it's not a career hoghlight film, it's just ONE playoff game. By Larry Bird in 1986.

By the way, poor Don Nelson...

[Owly]

So when they are contemporaries, Bird wins comfortably in the larger sample size (the regular season). For the playoffs, was either the East or the West unusually bad? The East has been weak for the last 15 years or so, which is a factor in why KG/Shaq/Duncan did not make the finals more than they did (because they had to go through each other). Did Magic or Bird play in the 'big boys' conference which could be a factor in their postseason results?

Assuming this isn't a set up, the Lakers competition conference wise was significantly weaker through the first decade of their career (though it swung substantially in the other direction for Magic's final two years.

Boston's strength of schedule '80 to '92
1980 -0.43
1981 0.17
1982 -0.03
1983 -0.01
1984 -0.14
1985 -0.18
1986 -0.36
1987 -0.07
1988 0.22
1989 0.1
1990 -0.76
1991 -0.6
1992 -0.21

LA's strength of schedule '80 to '91
1980 -0.51
1981 -0.57
1982 -0.5
1983 -0.49
1984 -0.44
1985 -0.87
1986 -0.9
1987 -0.98
1988 -1.03
1989 -0.79
1990 -0.04
1991 -0.01

The difference between Boston and LA's SoS (negative means LA's is easier, positive means Boston's is)
1980 -0.08
1981 -0.74
1982 -0.47
1983 -0.48
1984 -0.3
1985 -0.69
1986 -0.54
1987 -0.91
1988 -1.25
1989 -0.89
1990 0.72
1991 0.59


And the easiest (relative to league strength) schedule's of all time: http://bkref.com/tiny/z5H04

Of course good teams can't play themselves, and whilst that must be figured in to accounts of strength of schedule, it's hard to be too critical of teams for that.

The softness of the West is particularly notable in the lack of contenders. From '85 to '88 there was only one (non-Laker) team in the West with an SRS over +4. And LA didn't even have to go through them ('87 Mavericks, +5.55, fell in the first round). Though the SRS only swung in '90 the contender situation moved a year earlier ('89 Suns, +6.84, swept by LA in the conference finals).

In the regular season the SRS barely matters unless we are talking about the difference in say a 60 win team with and easy schedule and a 60 win team with a hard schedule and even then the difference is minimal.

I don't know if this is an "in defense of Magic" thing or whatever, but I don't have a horse here (and pointed out that, whilst unlikely, someone could ask the question knowing 80's West's patsy status - LA excepted).

Your own reasoning has been put already here and that's defense enough (if people agree with your analysis).

Well that's why for Magic I kinda ignored how he played against the creampuff teams in my sample and I focused on the great teams he played and like teams they played. Magic still outplayed Bird in those series. I don't give magic credit for just making it the the Finals and CF yearly but I give him credit for laying well in the Finals and CF.

But as for SOS not mattering (or not mattering with caveats, though somewhat vague ones, what is a hard schedule or an easy one? And note above in historical terms LA had quite a few of the league's 30 easiest schedule's ever in the latter half of the 80s).

In '88 Boston's SRS (6.15) was the league's best yet they would only be expected to win 56 games according Basketball-Reference based on their SRS and the difficulty of their schedule (they won 57).
In '87 LA's SRS (4.81) was the league's third best. They too would be expected to win 56 games according to Basketball-Reference based on their schedule (they won 62).

Boston went through a tougher regular season to ensure homecourt within their conference, then played two teams better than anyone LA could possibly play until the finals (Atlanta and Detroit). It could plausibly be argued that Boston ran their old, now somewhat fragile (not the right/ideal word here, but I need to convey McHale recently injured, at risk of further injury and fatigue) team into the ground and lost in the playoffs because of a further difficult schedule and tiredness.

Some (albeit Bleacher Report, http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2284 ... all-legend , so... , not a Bird expert would have to look into it further whether Bird's bone spurs etc were there and/or a matter of record at the time, I think from snippets of Drive he said he was injured at the time but wouldn't blame his Conference Finals play on that, which sounds like him) have expressly stated that Bird was stopped by injuries .

Put it this way when team success is important to accolades, when schedule affects player numbers and when schedule strength gives an indication of playoff schedule difficulty (and this was Magicmerl's initial enquiry

Did Magic or Bird play in the 'big boys' conference which could be a factor in their postseason results

and SOS gives a nice shorthand for conference strength (assuming the two teams are of roughly equal abilities), the difference in strength of schedule is relevent. It's not nothing.

But if you want playoffs only, opponents SRS, year by year feel free to post it.

I favour Magic over Bird (not a vote just between the two), as I said earlier in the thread the production gap '89-91 is huge (Magic -at least- arguably as good as either of them ever were. Bird missing a basically a whole season, 22 games of another, nowhere near his former levels, and getting worse on D because of a lack of mobility). But their schedule's/conferences were a disadvantage to Bird.

[penbeast0]

As we come to the end of regulation it's Hakeem making a late rush with all four of the new votes this afternoon to move into the runoff against Magic. Please focus your posts on Magic v. Hakeem; we will have a new thread tomorrow to discuss other players.


Magic 14 -- GC Pantalones, magicmer1, basketballefan, JordansBulls, Chuck Texas, penbeast0, Clyde Frazier, trex 8063, ardee, batmana, andrewww, An Unbiased Fan, john248, SactoKingsFan

Hakeem 8 -- Heartbreak Kid, threalbig3, Gregoire, ronnymac2, MacGill, 90sAllDecade, fpliii, RayBan-Sematra

Bird 6 -- DQuinn 1575, Baller 2014, Warspite, DannyNoonan 1221, rich 316, RSCD3

KG 2 -- Doctor MJ, PC Productions

[Owly]

All Nba 1st teams
Malone-11
Hakeem-6

There are two forward slots but only one center slot on the First Team. So it might be more difficult to make the 1st Team for Hakeem compared to Karl Malone.

Well to a limited degree. There are also twice the number of forwards competing for those places. To the extent that you could be second best forward and keep getting All-NBA, there's a case . But 1st team demarcates the same percentile at each position. And as to whether the 2nd best thing is what's typically happening with Malone (though he and Barkley are of course very close) MVP voting could give some indication

Malone's MVP finish amongst forwards (in years he was 1st Team All-NBA)
'89 1st (3rd overall)
'90 2nd, behind Barkley (4th overall)
'91 2nd, behind Barkley (5th overall)
'92 1st (4th overall)
'93 3rd, behind Barkley and Dominique (tied 8th overall)
'94 joint second, behind Pippen, equal with Kemp (tied 7th overall)
'95 1st (3rd overall)
'96 2nd to Pippen (7th overall)
'97 1st (1st)
'98 1st (2nd)
'99 1st (1st)
1st: six times, 2nd (behind one): three times; tied 2nd (behind one, equal to one): one time; 3rd, one time.

Malone has a significant edge over Olajuwon in MVP shares (and a much smaller lead in RealGM PoY Share). There's a reasonable point to be made here in terms of Robinson being tough competition (and later Shaq). But you could also argue that Olajuwon had it easy in the latter half of the 80s (Malone, Jabbar and Parish aging, Ewing not great straight away, 2nd tier guys like Sikma and Laimbeer at least starting to age. Sampson flamed out injured. Robinson spent two years in the Navy. Daugherty wasn't ready right away. Hey Olajuwon was good, but he wasn't pushed for 1st team status in the late(r) 80s.

Not that accolades are a good case for who's better (certainly not by themselves).

[RSCD3_]

As we come to the end of regulation it's Hakeem making a late rush with all four of the new votes this afternoon to move into the runoff against Magic. Please focus your posts on Magic v. Hakeem; we will have a new thread tomorrow to discuss other players.


Magic 14 -- GC Pantalones, magicmer1, basketballefan, JordansBulls, Chuck Texas, penbeast0, Clyde Frazier, trex 8063, ardee, batmana, andrewww, An Unbiased Fan, john248, SactoKingsFan

Hakeem 8 -- Heartbreak Kid, threalbig3, Gregoire, ronnymac2, MacGill, 90sAllDecade, fpliii, RayBan-Sematra

Bird 6 -- DQuinn 1575, Baller 2014, Warspite, DannyNoonan 1221, rich 316, RSCD3

KG 2 -- Doctor MJ, PC Productions

So do I edit my original post and put a run off vote ? Does it need to come with explanation ?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[E-Balla]

[
Assuming this isn't a set up, the Lakers competition conference wise was significantly weaker through the first decade of their career (though it swung substantially in the other direction for Magic's final two years.

Boston's strength of schedule '80 to '92
1980 -0.43
1981 0.17
1982 -0.03
1983 -0.01
1984 -0.14
1985 -0.18
1986 -0.36
1987 -0.07
1988 0.22
1989 0.1
1990 -0.76
1991 -0.6
1992 -0.21

LA's strength of schedule '80 to '91
1980 -0.51
1981 -0.57
1982 -0.5
1983 -0.49
1984 -0.44
1985 -0.87
1986 -0.9
1987 -0.98
1988 -1.03
1989 -0.79
1990 -0.04
1991 -0.01

The difference between Boston and LA's SoS (negative means LA's is easier, positive means Boston's is)
1980 -0.08
1981 -0.74
1982 -0.47
1983 -0.48
1984 -0.3
1985 -0.69
1986 -0.54
1987 -0.91
1988 -1.25
1989 -0.89
1990 0.72
1991 0.59


And the easiest (relative to league strength) schedule's of all time: http://bkref.com/tiny/z5H04

Of course good teams can't play themselves, and whilst that must be figured in to accounts of strength of schedule, it's hard to be too critical of teams for that.

The softness of the West is particularly notable in the lack of contenders. From '85 to '88 there was only one (non-Laker) team in the West with an SRS over +4. And LA didn't even have to go through them ('87 Mavericks, +5.55, fell in the first round). Though the SRS only swung in '90 the contender situation moved a year earlier ('89 Suns, +6.84, swept by LA in the conference finals).

In the regular season the SRS barely matters unless we are talking about the difference in say a 60 win team with and easy schedule and a 60 win team with a hard schedule and even then the difference is minimal.

I don't know if this is an "in defense of Magic" thing or whatever, but I don't have a horse here (and pointed out that, whilst unlikely, someone could ask the question knowing 80's West's patsy status - LA excepted).

Oh no it matters for the small playoff samples but for the regular season all teams are close enough to really just ignore it. A 0.7 difference in SRS is negligible.

Your own reasoning has been put already here and that's defense enough (if people agree with your analysis).

Well that's why for Magic I kinda ignored how he played against the creampuff teams in my sample and I focused on the great teams he played and like teams they played. Magic still outplayed Bird in those series. I don't give magic credit for just making it the the Finals and CF yearly but I give him credit for laying well in the Finals and CF.

But as for SOS not mattering (or not mattering with caveats, though somewhat vague ones, what is a hard schedule or an easy one? And note above in historical terms LA had quite a few of the league's 30 easiest schedule's ever in the latter half of the 80s).

In '88 Boston's SRS (6.15) was the league's best yet they would only be expected to win 56 games according Basketball-Reference based on their SRS and the difficulty of their schedule (they won 57).
In '87 LA's SRS (4.81) was the league's third best. They too would be expected to win 56 games according to Basketball-Reference based on their schedule (they won 62).

Boston went through a tougher regular season to ensure homecourt within their conference, then played two teams better than anyone LA could possibly play until the finals (Atlanta and Detroit). It could plausibly be argued that Boston ran their old, now somewhat fragile (not the right/ideal word here, but I need to convey McHale recently injured, at risk of further injury and fatigue) team into the ground and lost in the playoffs because of a further difficult schedule and tiredness.

Some (albeit Bleacher Report, http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2284 ... all-legend , so... , not a Bird expert would have to look into it further whether Bird's bone spurs etc were there and/or a matter of record at the time, I think from snippets of Drive he said he was injured at the time but wouldn't blame his Conference Finals play on that, which sounds like him) have expressly stated that Bird was stopped by injuries .

Put it this way when team success is important to accolades, when schedule affects player numbers and when schedule strength gives an indication of playoff schedule difficulty (and this was Magicmerl's initial enquiry

Did Magic or Bird play in the 'big boys' conference which could be a factor in their postseason results

and SOS gives a nice shorthand for conference strength (assuming the two teams are of roughly equal abilities), the difference in strength of schedule is relevent. It's not nothing.

But if you want playoffs only, opponents SRS, year by year feel free to post it.

I favour Magic over Bird (not a vote just between the two), as I said earlier in the thread the production gap '89-91 is huge (Magic -at least- arguably as good as either of them ever were. Bird missing a basically a whole season, 22 games of another, nowhere near his former levels, and getting worse on D because of a lack of mobility). But their schedule's/conferences were a disadvantage to Bird.

Of course it was. Now if someone has an argument on how Bird underperformed at times because he was fatigued and that Magic would underperform in similar situations I would be open to it and it would probably lower my stance on Magic enough to at least vote Hakeem over him (and that's saying something because I've been voting Magic since the #4 thread). I just don't see fatigue being that big of an issue especially when Magic was going to the CF or Finals nearly every season.

[E-Balla]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFamuwa96sM[/youtube]

That touch pass at the start makes me happier than my ex ever did. (Saying things like that probably has to do with it, but still)

Game 3 of the same WCF series (a key match, obviously)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3eIW_ujmhE[/youtube]

Basketball at its finest.
A passing clinic... then he buries the dagger to finish the job. The quality of these passes is amazing... and it's not a career hoghlight film, it's just ONE playoff game. By Larry Bird in 1986.

By the way, poor Don Nelson...

That over the shoulder pass to Parish was amazing. To be able to see the double and immediately know where Parish is and that no one rotated to check Parish is spectacular. Most players don't have the vision down low to make those type of plays.

[O_6]

I feel like the 7 players voted in fit into 3 different categories based on why they were voted in...

2-Way BIGS: Kareem, Wilt, Duncan, Shaq
2-Way wings: Jordan, LeBron
1-Way GOAT impact: Bill Russell

That's a very general way to look at it. Obviously, Shaq's defense wasn't the greatest and LeBron/Jordan are where they are primarily because of offense. But Shaq was a plus defender and a true impact defender for stretches, and MJ/Bron were both very valuable defenders which helps them create a more complete case for GOAT. Bill Russell is pretty much unique because of how undisputed his Defensive GOATness is. The questions with him come from era-translation and offensive impact. But his defensive dominance carried him to a Top 3 vote on this list.

These are where my candidates for our #8 spot fit in...

2-Way BIGS: Hakeem, Garnett
2-Way Wings: Kobe, Dr. J (although Kobe's D is questioned and Dr. J's man-D is questioned)
1-Way GOAT impact: Magic, Bird, Oscar
Others: Dirk, K. Malone, Moses, Barkley, West (Offense-heavy Bigs but not GOAT offense contenders + West who was a straight up killer and may be the GOAT if the 3pt line existed back then)

I think comparing these players within their own "species" first allows me to get a better idea of these players' arguments. With all due respect to the "2-way Wings" and "Others" group, I don't think any of the players in that group has a strong enough argument for #8 yet. So it comes down to Hakeem vs. Garnett and Magic vs. Bird vs. Oscar for me.

Hakeem vs. Garnett:
I'm definitely looking at KG in a slightly different light after reading all these wonderful posts. I've always believed he was a wonderful defensive player but I always thought his offense was overrated. Now I'm starting to re-think his offensive impact, I think he was better than I originally believed. His PG-PF offensive versatility really is something special and he was an efficient shooter from pretty much everywhere inside the 3pt line. But I still believe Hakeem was a far greater offensive player at his peak, I think he hit a level offensively in '93-'95 that neither Duncan or KG ever approached. Some of that could be me overrating the importance of volume scoring, but I don't think I'm overrating it. Hakeem's ability to carry such an immense offensive load and do it at such a high level had a domino effect on the rest of his teammates offensively. And even though Hakeem struggled to reach his full potential on offense pre-Rudy T. before '93, he was still a dominant playoff performer and did lead his team past a prime Showtime Lakers with a destructive series. I simply believe Hakeem was the greater offensive player.

So KG's case would have to be based on defense. And as historic as his Boston D was and as thoroughly impressive as his dRAPM numbers are, I feel like Hakeem was just as good. Garnett was absolutely superior in the "horizontal" game. Garnett had the kind of agility necessary to guard a peak T-Mac and guard him well. I'm a diehard T-Mac fan and I remember those games vividly. It was so impressive. When people ask what Garnett had over Robinson/Hakeem/Duncan, the "horizontal game" is absolutely a legitimate answer. None of those guys could be the primary defensive assignment against T-Mac.

But at the same time, Hakeem was far superior in the "vertical game" with his historic rim protection skills. And Hakeem was also a far better defender against true Centers and bigger players. KG struggled against stronger players more than Hakeem did imo. Hakeem would limit opposing Centers to a high degree. Hakeem's low-post Man D and Rim protection are clear edges over KG imo. And although Hakeem wouldn't be guarding peak T-Mac, he was wonderful on switches and could guard perimeter players very well. So I can't really kill him on that aspect of D either. KG seems to be the more vocal and higher IQ defender, which helps his case. But overall, I just can't see KG being a better enough defender than Hakeem for me to take him. Hakeem's offensive peak was clearly greater, his offensive prime was comparable, and his defensive prime/peak was comparable. I'm going with Hakeem here. He's the next two-way Big up for me.

Magic vs. Bird vs. Oscar
This is a very tough comparison for me to make, especially with having Oscar sneak in there. I would've loved to have ignored Oscar, but I would have been lying to myself. He absolutely belongs in the discussion imo. A lot of the same strengths that people are championing for Magic also apply to Oscar. That being said, I feel like Magic was just a better version of Oscar. Much like MJ is a better version of Kobe. So I tried my best but I couldn't really come up with a strong enough argument for Oscar over Magic. So he was the first to be eliminated.

So it came down to Magic vs. Bird for me. Bird is a completely different style player from Magic, so this comparison was tougher for me to figure out than Magic vs. Oscar. Magic and Bird both had such a strong team impact offensively, but did it in different ways. Bird's versatility allowed him to fit in so well in any style of offense, whereas Magic WAS THE STYLE of his offense. Magic was more ball-dominant and he was going to be running your offense no matter what and you couldn't complain at all because of how great he was at it. But Bird had the ability to meld his skills into the team's starting 5 and do whatever job was necessary to maximize his team's offensive production.

Bird was better early, Magic closed the gap in the middle but still trailed until '87, and then Magic was able to outlast Bird. It's tough. I just read that this was a Hakeem vs. Magic run-off so I'm going to end it here because I'm about to go out in an hour. But I was leaning Magic the entire way and although the Bird posts were fantastic, I just feel like Magic was able to control the game to a higher degree and was the more unstoppable offensive force. Bird was tremendous and has his fingers all over the place, but I don't think he could carry offenses to the degree that Magic did. No matter how pathetic your car was, Magic was going to give you an A+ engine. Very tough call but I go Magic.

Magic vs. Hakeem:
This is the run-off but this was going to be my final 2 regardless. Check out my last thread and you'll see that I was coming down to LeBron vs. Hakeem with Magic a close 3rd. And the main reason Magic was a clear 3rd was because I thought Hakeem had a better argument vs. LeBron due to his different position and style. Magic vs. Hakeem is sooo tough...

Magic provided GOAT offensive impact, the offensive GOAT is either him or MJ imo. But he was a questionable defensive player. I respect all the great posts talking about his excellent trapping skills, but he still struggled bigtime with quicker PGs. He was a limited man-defender.

Hakeem is a GOAT defensive impact (non-Bill Russell division) candidate. His pogo-stick jumping ability is just absurd. And he had the quickness and strength to switch out onto guards and harass them while still being capable of guarding monster Centers like Shaq/Robinson. But his offensive impact was always merely "good" and not "great" until '93.

But it comes back down to the "species" of these players. Hakeem was a dominant 2-way Big whereas Magic's case is almost entirely based on his offensive dominance. And I lean towards the monster 2-way Big. Hakeem's peak in '93/'94 trumps Magic's '87 season imo, he could anchor an elite offense and an elite defense at the same time. In '86 we saw baby Hakeem eliminate a team led by "One year from his peak" Magic due to his two-way dominance. Hakeem was a tornado in that series and was the only player outside of Moses and Bird to make the Showtime Lakers look mortal.

I have questions about Hakeem's overall offensive career value. It's the reason why I rated him behind Shaq and Duncan. Players who I felt were more consistent. But Hakeem's peak offensive ability is impossible to ignore and the fact that he always showed up in the playoffs even as a youngster makes me more comfortable with his offense. (I still have Magic over KG at this point because I don't trust his peak offensive value as much as I do Hakeem's). And Hakeem's Defense is unquestionable. As absolutely wonderful as Magic is on offense, I still value Hakeem's two-way act more especially because I'm sold on his offense to a great enough degree ESPECIALLY at his peak when I believe he was a more valuable player than Magic. I just can't rate Duncan/Shaq ahead of Magic while rating Hakeem below Magic. It just doesn't make sense for me. Atleast LeBron had the plus defense and historic dominance argument going in his favor, the same arguments that carried MJ to #1. Magic isn't good enough on D and doesn't even have the longevity edge, so I have to go HAKEEM OLAJUWON.

[Purch]

I feel like the 7 players voted in fit into 3 different categories based on why they were voted in...

2-Way BIGS: Kareem, Wilt, Duncan, Shaq
2-Way wings: Jordan, LeBron
1-Way GOAT impact: Bill Russell

That's a very general way to look at it. Obviously, Shaq's defense wasn't the greatest and LeBron/Jordan are where they are primarily because of offense. But Shaq was a plus defender and a true impact defender for stretches, and MJ/Bron were both very valuable defenders which helps them create a more complete case for GOAT. Bill Russell is pretty much unique because of how undisputed his Defensive GOATness is. The questions with him come from era-translation and offensive impact. But his defensive dominance carried him to a Top 3 vote on this list.

These are where my candidates for our #8 spot fit in...

2-Way BIGS: Hakeem, Garnett
2-Way Wings: Kobe, Dr. J (although Kobe's D is questioned and Dr. J's man-D is questioned)
1-Way GOAT impact: Magic, Bird, Oscar
Others: Dirk, K. Malone, Moses, Barkley, West (Offense-heavy Bigs but not GOAT offense contenders + West who was a straight up killer and may be the GOAT if the 3pt line existed back then)

I think comparing these players within their own "species" first allows me to get a better idea of these players' arguments. With all due respect to the "2-way Wings" and "Others" group, I don't think any of the players in that group has a strong enough argument for #8 yet. So it comes down to Hakeem vs. Garnett and Magic vs. Bird vs. Oscar for me.

Hakeem vs. Garnett:
I'm definitely looking at KG in a slightly different light after reading all these wonderful posts. I've always believed he was a wonderful defensive player but I always thought his offense was overrated. Now I'm starting to re-think his offensive impact, I think he was better than I originally believed. His PG-PF offensive versatility really is something special and he was an efficient shooter from pretty much everywhere inside the 3pt line. But I still believe Hakeem was a far greater offensive player at his peak, I think he hit a level offensively in '93-'95 that neither Duncan or KG ever approached. Some of that could be me overrating the importance of volume scoring, but I don't think I'm overrating it. Hakeem's ability to carry such an immense offensive load and do it at such a high level had a domino effect on the rest of his teammates offensively. And even though Hakeem struggled to reach his full potential on offense pre-Rudy T. before '93, he was still a dominant playoff performer and did lead his team past a prime Showtime Lakers with a destructive series. I simply believe Hakeem was the greater offensive player.

So KG's case would have to be based on defense. And as historic as his Boston D was and as thoroughly impressive as his dRAPM numbers are, I feel like Hakeem was just as good. Garnett was absolutely superior in the "horizontal" game. Garnett had the kind of agility necessary to guard a peak T-Mac and guard him well. I'm a diehard T-Mac fan and I remember those games vividly. It was so impressive. When people ask what Garnett had over Robinson/Hakeem/Duncan, the "horizontal game" is absolutely a legitimate answer. None of those guys could be the primary defensive assignment against T-Mac.

But at the same time, Hakeem was far superior in the "vertical game" with his historic rim protection skills. And Hakeem was also a far better defender against true Centers and bigger players. KG struggled against stronger players more than Hakeem did imo. Hakeem would limit opposing Centers to a high degree. Hakeem's low-post Man D and Rim protection are clear edges over KG imo. And although Hakeem wouldn't be guarding peak T-Mac, he was wonderful on switches and could guard perimeter players very well. So I can't really kill him on that aspect of D either. KG seems to be the more vocal and higher IQ defender, which helps his case. But overall, I just can't see KG being a better enough defender than Hakeem for me to take him. Hakeem's offensive peak was clearly greater, his offensive prime was comparable, and his defensive prime/peak was comparable. I'm going with Hakeem here. He's the next two-way Big up for me.

Magic vs. Bird vs. Oscar
This is a very tough comparison for me to make, especially with having Oscar sneak in there. I would've loved to have ignored Oscar, but I would have been lying to myself. He absolutely belongs in the discussion imo. A lot of the same strengths that people are championing for Magic also apply to Oscar. That being said, I feel like Magic was just a better version of Oscar. Much like MJ is a better version of Kobe. So I tried my best but I couldn't really come up with a strong enough argument for Oscar over Magic. So he was the first to be eliminated.

So it came down to Magic vs. Bird for me. Bird is a completely different style player from Magic, so this comparison was tougher for me to figure out than Magic vs. Oscar. Magic and Bird both had such a strong team impact offensively, but did it in different ways. Bird's versatility allowed him to fit in so well in any style of offense, whereas Magic WAS THE STYLE of his offense. Magic was more ball-dominant and he was going to be running your offense no matter what and you couldn't complain at all because of how great he was at it. But Bird had the ability to meld his skills into the team's starting 5 and do whatever job was necessary to maximize his team's offensive production.

Bird was better early, Magic closed the gap in the middle but still trailed until '87, and then Magic was able to outlast Bird. It's tough. I just read that this was a Hakeem vs. Magic run-off so I'm going to end it here because I'm about to go out in an hour. But I was leaning Magic the entire way and although the Bird posts were fantastic, I just feel like Magic was able to control the game to a higher degree and was the more unstoppable offensive force. Bird was tremendous and has his fingers all over the place, but I don't think he could carry offenses to the degree that Magic did. No matter how pathetic your car was, Magic was going to give you an A+ engine. Very tough call but I go Magic.

Magic vs. Hakeem:
This is the run-off but this was going to be my final 2 regardless. Check out my last thread and you'll see that I was coming down to LeBron vs. Hakeem with Magic a close 3rd. And the main reason Magic was a clear 3rd was because I thought Hakeem had a better argument vs. LeBron due to his different position and style. Magic vs. Hakeem is sooo tough...

Magic provided GOAT offensive impact, the offensive GOAT is either him or MJ imo. But he was a questionable defensive player. I respect all the great posts talking about his excellent trapping skills, but he still struggled bigtime with quicker PGs. He was a limited man-defender.

Hakeem is a GOAT defensive impact (non-Bill Russell division) candidate. His pogo-stick jumping ability is just absurd. And he had the quickness and strength to switch out onto guards and harass them while still being capable of guarding monster Centers like Shaq/Robinson. But his offensive impact was always merely "good" and not "great" until '93.

But it comes back down to the "species" of these players. Hakeem was a dominant 2-way Big whereas Magic's case is almost entirely based on his offensive dominance. And I lean towards the monster 2-way Big. Hakeem's peak in '93/'94 trumps Magic's '87 season imo, he could anchor an elite offense and an elite defense at the same time. In '86 we saw baby Hakeem eliminate a team led by "One year from his peak" Magic due to his two-way dominance. Hakeem was a tornado in that series and was the only player outside of Moses and Bird to make the Showtime Lakers look mortal.

I have questions about Hakeem's overall offensive career value. It's the reason why I rated him behind Shaq and Duncan. Players who I felt were more consistent. But Hakeem's peak offensive ability is impossible to ignore and the fact that he always showed up in the playoffs even as a youngster makes me more comfortable with his offense. (I still have Magic over KG at this point because I don't trust his peak offensive value as much as I do Hakeem's). And Hakeem's Defense is unquestionable. As absolutely wonderful as Magic is on offense, I still value Hakeem's two-way act more especially because I'm sold on his offense to a great enough degree ESPECIALLY at his peak when I believe he was a more valuable player than Magic. I just can't rate Duncan/Shaq ahead of Magic while rating Hakeem below Magic. It just doesn't make sense for me. Atleast LeBron had the plus defense and historic dominance argument going in his favor, the same arguments that carried MJ to #1. Magic isn't good enough on D and doesn't even have the longevity edge, so I have to go HAKEEM OLAJUWON.

Why do you consider Oscar a better offensive player than Barkley?

[Baller2014]

As we come to the end of regulation it's Hakeem making a late rush with all four of the new votes this afternoon to move into the runoff against Magic. Please focus your posts on Magic v. Hakeem; we will have a new thread tomorrow to discuss other players.


Magic 14 -- GC Pantalones, magicmer1, basketballefan, JordansBulls, Chuck Texas, penbeast0, Clyde Frazier, trex 8063, ardee, batmana, andrewww, An Unbiased Fan, john248, SactoKingsFan

Hakeem 8 -- Heartbreak Kid, threalbig3, Gregoire, ronnymac2, MacGill, 90sAllDecade, fpliii, RayBan-Sematra

Bird 6 -- DQuinn 1575, Baller 2014, Warspite, DannyNoonan 1221, rich 316, RSCD3

KG 2 -- Doctor MJ, PC Productions

So do I edit my original post and put a run off vote ? Does it need to come with explanation ?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Might be easier to find if you just make a new post. I'm going to have to think about Hakeem v.s Magic, though my inclination is pretty strongly to just vote Magic. I mean, he was clearly rated ahead of him when their careers overlapped, so what argument does Hakeem really have? That everyone was wrong all the time? Seems unlikely.

[O_6]

.

Why do you consider Oscar a better offensive player than Barkley?

Barkley is very close to that Offensive GOAT level for me. But I feel like his offensive efficiency overrates him slightly. Not to the degree of Adrian Dantley's offense, but slightly. I think Barkley is probably the best of the non-GOAT Offensive candidates. But Barkley vs. Dirk on offense is very tough for me. I see Barkley's efficiency but I also prefer Dirk's style and Dirk was extremely efficient as well. And I just don't see Dirk as a GOAT offensive player candidate. But I wouldn't take Barkley or Dirk before Magic/Bird if I had a pick.

Oscar's team offenses are just undeniable. He was an offensize wizard who was before his time. He didn't dominate on offense to the degree that Russell dominated on defense, but he clearly had a historic impact. I just feel safer with Oscar as my offensive anchor than I do Barkley.

I'd love to go into it more, maybe on future threads.