Retro Player of the Year 1988-89 UPDATE — Magic Johnson

[tsherkin]

It doesn't necessarily mean they were right, but I'm leaning to that being the case. Malone was the much better offensive player than Hakeem prior to his 93 season when everything seemed to click

How much of that was having a quality table-setter and a very well-spaced offensive system compared to what Olajuwon was working with? They both exhibited similar early development in their shooting. Olajuwon had the athletic advantage, but Malone had the luxury of working off a high-end PG with more around him than Olajuwon did until the Rudy T years.

I'm not married to the notion that Olajuwon was perpetually superior to Malone, and there's a lot to be said about what Karl Malone did on his own merits, I'm just looking to flesh out the discussion.

[AEnigma]

This shouldn't be surprising. MVP voters had Mailman over Dream every year from 89 to 92, usually by a large margin. Malone was widely seen as the better player.

Doesn't mean they were right to do so.

Record influences such things, and Dream was clearly the superior defender the entire time. In that span, Olajuwon twice led the league in rebounding, was crushing it as a shotblocker. In the last two seasons, his raw scoring average was down and he wasn't working with a lot around him. IIRC there was the trade demand, and of course he only played 56 and 70 games in those last two seasons.

But in 89 and 90, those were strong, strong years from him. Ewing and Robinson were over him in the 90 MVP vote, and the 89 Jazz were a 51-win team and Malone was a 29.1 ppg scorer. Voters like PPG.

It doesn't necessarily mean they were right, but I'm leaning to that being the case. Malone was the much better offensive player than Hakeem prior to his 93 season when everything seemed to click.

“Much better” based on… scoring efficiency that never translates to the playoff? Certainly not his passing yet.

The Jazz have yet to maintain anything better than a -1 offence. You made such a stink about how 1986 Hakeem must not have been that good defensively if that specific Rockets team had a mediocre defence, but Malone goes the first few years of his career playing on outright bad offences and you have nothing to say.

Malone wasn't a rim protector, which is by far the most important defensive ability to have, but he was a bear on defense and the boards nonetheless, as well as a hoary (and dirty) enforcer. There isn't a stat that captures all the brutal screens and subtle elbows that Malone used to wear down opponents.

Oh I forgot how much that bridges the gap with the best defenders in league history. Maybe Charles Oakley really was right up there with Eaton and Hakeem.

For whatever reason, Hakeem wasn't able to translate his talent into impact like Malone,

Comically counterfactual.

and I doubt his trade demands and crappy attitude helped.

Who exactly is your number one vote.

As I noted in my voting post, I'm actually considering flipping these 2, but Malone being ahead should be a surprise to no-one.

If the sole marker is “won more games in the regular season,” sure.

This refrain of 'well, MVP voters like ppg' has been refuted before.

Refuted meaning “I have been pressed on it and never given a response anyone other than myself took seriously.”

Plenty of guys were ranked over Hakeem over the years with worse ppg,

Not really, no.

and plenty were ranked over him with worse ream records.

Not really, no.

I'm not even saying I agree with all those votes,

No, you just care about them at the moment because they give you a criticism you can make without actually addressing the players themselves.

but Malone definitely has a case over him. Far more than Stockton does over either.

Yet Stockton was also getting MVP votes in this period, and Stockton was the one translating into the postseason, and Stockton was the one making plays for others.

[One_and_Done]

It doesn't necessarily mean they were right, but I'm leaning to that being the case. Malone was the much better offensive player than Hakeem prior to his 93 season when everything seemed to click

How much of that was having a quality table-setter and a very well-spaced offensive system compared to what Olajuwon was working with? They both exhibited similar early development in their shooting. Olajuwon had the athletic advantage, but Malone had the luxury of working off a high-end PG with more around him than Olajuwon did until the Rudy T years.

I'm not married to the notion that Olajuwon was perpetually superior to Malone, and there's a lot to be said about what Karl Malone did on his own merits, I'm just looking to flesh out the discussion.

As you will be aware from my previous posting history, my opinion of John Stockton is not high. Him being 7th this year looks much more ridiculous than Malone being 3rd.

[tsherkin]

As you will be aware from my previous posting history, my opinion of John Stockton is not high. Him being 7th this year looks much more ridiculous than Malone being 3rd.

Whatever your opinion of Stockton, he was still much better than anything Olajuwon was working with in Houston.

[One_and_Done]

Doesn't mean they were right to do so.

Record influences such things, and Dream was clearly the superior defender the entire time. In that span, Olajuwon twice led the league in rebounding, was crushing it as a shotblocker. In the last two seasons, his raw scoring average was down and he wasn't working with a lot around him. IIRC there was the trade demand, and of course he only played 56 and 70 games in those last two seasons.

But in 89 and 90, those were strong, strong years from him. Ewing and Robinson were over him in the 90 MVP vote, and the 89 Jazz were a 51-win team and Malone was a 29.1 ppg scorer. Voters like PPG.

It doesn't necessarily mean they were right, but I'm leaning to that being the case. Malone was the much better offensive player than Hakeem prior to his 93 season when everything seemed to click.

“Much better” based on… scoring efficiency that never translates to the playoff? Certainly not his passing yet.

Malone wasn't a rim protector, which is by far the most important defensive ability to have, but he was a bear on defense and the boards nonetheless, as well as a hoary (and dirty) enforcer. There isn't a stat that captures all the brutal screens and subtle elbows that Malone used to wear down opponents.

Oh I forgot how much that bridges the gap with the best defenders in league history. Maybe Charles Oakley really was right up there with Eaton and Hakeem.

For whatever reason, Hakeem wasn't able to translate his talent into impact like Malone,

Comically counterfactual.

and I doubt his trade demands and crappy attitude helped.

Who exactly is your number one vote.

As I noted in my voting post, I'm actually considering flipping these 2, but Malone being ahead should be a surprise to no-one.

If the sole marker is “won more games in the regular season,” sure.

This refrain of 'well, MVP voters like ppg' has been refuted before.

Refuted meaning “I have been pressed on it and never given a response anyone other than myself took seriously.”

Plenty of guys were ranked over Hakeem over the years with worse ppg,

Not really, no.

and plenty were ranked over him with worse ream records.

Not really, no.

I'm not even saying I agree with all those votes,

No, you just care about them at the moment because they give you a criticism you can make without actually addressing the players themselves.

but Malone definitely has a case over him. Far more than Stockton does over either.

Yet Stockton was also getting MVP votes in this period, and Stockton was the one translating into the postseason, and Stockton was the one making plays for others.

I look forward to you giving the same level of scrutiny to people voting Stockton top 3, and Ewing over Jordan, though I doubt the tone of the posts will be the same.

[One_and_Done]

As you will be aware from my previous posting history, my opinion of John Stockton is not high. Him being 7th this year looks much more ridiculous than Malone being 3rd.

Whatever your opinion of Stockton, he was still much better than anything Olajuwon was working with in Houston.

Sure, but the results for the Jazz over that stretch were better too. I also don't think Hakeem's cast is as bad as it's made out to be. Otis Thorpe for eg was an all-star power forward, and a very nice player to have.

From 89-92 the Jazz won 51, 55, 54 and 55 games, compared to 45, 41, 52 & 42 wins for the Rockets. I'm very tough on the Jazz during the Stockton & Malone years, but they clearly were much better than the Rockets.

[AEnigma]

I look forward to you giving the same level of scrutiny to people voting Stockton top 3, and Ewing over Jordan, though I doubt the tone of the posts will be the same.

I have been, and they are substantially more consistent in their reasoning. That is why the tone is different. Picking up and dropping what you claim to care about is what permits spite votes and vote manipulation. It is a lot more difficult when you have been upfront with a specific approach taken to vote on and assess players and are visibly dedicated to that approach throughout the project.

[tsherkin]

Sure, but the results for the Jazz over that stretch were better too

Yes, they were. Having better support will do that.

. I also don't think Hakeem's cast is as bad as it's made out to be. Otis Thorpe for eg was an all-star power forward, and a very nice player to have.

He was okay. He wasn't a table-setting point guard or any kind of spacer. He wasn't a DPOY like Eaton.

89 Jazz were 17th on O and 1st on D.
90 Jazz were 10th on O and 5th on D.
91 Jazz were 11th on O and 6th on D.
92 Jazz were 4th on O and 7th on D.

And again, those last two years line up with Hakeem missing a bunch of games. Comparing team record directly isn't really helpful here.

[One_and_Done]

I look forward to you giving the same level of scrutiny to people voting Stockton top 3, and Ewing over Jordan, though I doubt the tone of the posts will be the same.

I have been, and they are substantially more consistent in their reasoning. That is why the tone is different. Picking up and dropping what you claim to care about is what permits spite votes and vote manipulation. It is a lot more difficult when you have been upfront with a specific approach taken to vote on and assess players and are visibly dedicated to that approach throughout the project.

I completely disagree with your assessment, as my views are incredibly consistent. You are just annoyed that they aren't leading to the results you want. I have cited MVP voting as a useful indicator all the way through, and have been critical of pre-93 Hakeem (and Stockton) from back to the top 100 project.

[kcktiny]

Yes, and while for now all I will do is strongly discourage people from voting that way — at the moment, the one ballot excluding Magic entirely is functionally cancelled out by the one ballot putting Jordan at fifth (restraint noted) — if it continues to be a problem I will be taking firmer measures. This is not supposed to be a project where we throw darts at a board to pick names

Firmer measures?

I thought the whole point of this exercise was to get the opinions of multiple people to draw a consensus opinion, like all-NBA or all-defensive team voting?

Since when does everyone have to vote for certain players - in particular the players you or others that post often have voted for? As long as the player suggestion is backed up with some level of discussion for inclusion, what's the difference? If someone picks a player that in the opinion of most doesn't belong, very few will back up or second that player suggestion.

And while contrarian votes can be and have been sincere

What/who makes a player suggestion/vote contrarian? How about just hearing people out for their reasons.

I am not forbidding contrarian votes when they are properly justified and internally consistent

And just who is to determine when they are "properly justified"? Let me guess.

And especially for players of 4 decades ago?

I'll give you a perfect example. And I can't wait to see how you consider this for being contrarian.

I have seen the name of Fat Lever mentioned just once - just one time - in these last three POY conversations. And while you want this to be just about 1988-89, the same argument for Fat Lever vs. Magic Johnson can be made for any of the four seasons of 1986-87 to 1989-90.

Over the 4 years both played similar minutes (11364/11692), similar games (308/314), and similar min/g (37). Here are some of their statistics over that time:

Lever Magic
2790 2082 rebounds (diff 708)
0787 0522 steals (diff 265)
0662 1170 turnovers (diff 508)

That's a difference of 1481 more ball possessions over 4 seasons for Lever - or 4.8 to 4.7 extra ball possessions per game over 4 long years (dividing by either 308 or 314), playing similar minutes. The league average team ball possession over those 4 seasons was worth 1.065 pts/poss, a bit more for Denver and even more for the Lakers. But no matter how you look at it that right there is more than 4 pts/g in favor of Lever over all that time - per game.

On top of that, outside of steals, blocked shots, and defensive rebounding Lever was the considerably better defender compared to Magic over that time.

Magic shot much better than did Lever over that time but committed far more turnovers so their offensive efficiency was much closer (Magic still better) than if you look at just their shooting percentages. And these 4 years Lever grabbed almost twice as many offensive rebounds that Magic did.

Magic did throw for more assists (3730) than did Lever (2369) but at a lower ast/to ratio (3.58 to 3.19). As a matter of fact, Magic threw for 1361 more assists but while committing 508 more turnovers than Lever, an ast/to ratio of just 2.68 (when the average ast/to ratio for PGs those 4 years was 2.90). So were those 1361 more assists worth it at that low of an ast/to ratio?

it’s probably more just a reflection of how much one cares if people will criticize one’s picks.

Fell free to criticize Lever over Magic.

Like, I don’t even think Patrick Ewing himself would put himself above Michael Jordan in 1988-1989, and same for people like Nance and Adams above Magic

I certainly would not suggest Michael Adams over Magic Johnson, but if you don't believe Larry Nance had as much value to his team as Magic Johnson did then:

- you really don't know who Larry Nance was
- you really don't understand the value of an excellent defender on your team playing 35 min/g scoring 17 pts/g while also being quite possibly the most offensively efficient PF/SF in the league

Because this season Nance was a far better defender than Magic was compared to Magic being a better player on offense than Nance.

Can anybody explain me why people consider Malone over Hakeem here?

Not only did Karl Malone get more votes for MVP than Olajuwon did, he also got more votes for the all-NBA 1st team (got more votes than any player). Plus Utah was the better team, was the better team offensively, and was much better defensively than Houston was this season.

Malone wasn't a rim protector, which is by far the most important defensive ability to have, but he was a bear on defense

One of the best defensive PFs. Yet didn't get named to an all-defensive team for another 8 years.

[AEnigma]

I look forward to you giving the same level of scrutiny to people voting Stockton top 3, and Ewing over Jordan, though I doubt the tone of the posts will be the same.

I have been, and they are substantially more consistent in their reasoning. That is why the tone is different. Picking up and dropping what you claim to care about is what permits spite votes and vote manipulation. It is a lot more difficult when you have been upfront with a specific approach taken to vote on and assess players and are visibly dedicated to that approach throughout the project.

I completely disagree with your assessment, as my views are incredibly consistent

You are “consistent” in the sense that you are ultimately just committing hard to your personal assessments, but your reasoning is either grossly inconsistent or simply couched with, “I thought this player was good and these players were not good,” and if pressed your determinations for good and not good will be similarly inconsistent or outright ludicrous (“young Hakeem lacked intensity”).

And then you exacerbate that effect by aggressively challenging anyone with a different determination.

You are just annoyed that they aren't leading to the results you want.

How exactly do you, One_and_Done, with the mighty power of your vote, feel you have prevented “the results I want”. If I am not mistaken, you are the one who has been openly not getting the results you want — hence the antagonism toward half the voting base in every thread.

More lashing out without thought.

I have cited MVP voting as a useful indicator all the way through, and have been critical of pre-93 Hakeem (and Stockton) from back to the top 100 project.

You spent most of 1969 and 1970 railing against it and said you thought Kareem should have won basically every MVP. You will not factor it in 2001 (or with Iverson generally), you will not factor it in 2008 (or with Kobe generally), you will not factor it in 2011, and you would not factor it if we were extending to 2017. On voting generally, you did not factor it for Dominique, did not factor it for Maravich, did not factor it for Tiny Archibald… You pick and choose when it matters.

[One_and_Done]

I have been, and they are substantially more consistent in their reasoning. That is why the tone is different. Picking up and dropping what you claim to care about is what permits spite votes and vote manipulation. It is a lot more difficult when you have been upfront with a specific approach taken to vote on and assess players and are visibly dedicated to that approach throughout the project.

I completely disagree with your assessment, as my views are incredibly consistent

You are “consistent” in the sense that you are ultimately just committing hard to your personal assessments, but your reasoning is either grossly inconsistent or simply couched in “I thought this player was good and these players were not good,” and if pressed your determinations for good and not good will be similarly inconsistent or outright ludicrous (“young Hakeem lacked intensity”).

And then you exacerbate that effect by aggressively challenging anyone with a different determination.

You are just annoyed that they aren't leading to the results you want.

How exactly do you, One_and_Done, with the mighty power of your vote, feel you have prevented “the results I want”. If I am not mistaken, you are the one who has been openly not getting the results you want — hence the antagonism toward half the voting base in every thread.

More lashing out without thought.

I have cited MVP voting as a useful indicator all the way through, and have been critical of pre-93 Hakeem (and Stockton) from back to the top 100 project.

You spent most of 1969 and 1970 railing against it and said you thought Kareem should have won basically every MVP. You will not factor it in 2001 (or with Iverson generally), you will not factor it in 2008 (or with Kobe generally), you will not factor it in 2011, and you would not factor it if we were extending to 2017. On voting generally, you did not factor it for Dominique, did not factor it for Maravich, did not factor it for Tiny Archibald… You pick and choose when it matters.

How can anyone criticise the lack of 'detailed reasoning' in posts for this project, when you're accepting votes with rationales of 1 line, or which reference their 'Baller vow'. I've shown in the top 100 project I'm happy to provide pages of reasoning, but that hasn't been the standard set here.

[AEnigma]

Firmer measures?

I thought the whole point of this exercise was to get the opinions of multiple people to draw a consensus opinion, like all-NBA or all-defensive team voting?

This is the only relevant part of your post, and in response: yes, but opinion discussion falls apart if the focus becomes “what ballot can I submit that most helps the player I want to win.”

Since when does everyone have to vote for certain players - in particular the players you or others that post often have voted for? As long as the player suggestion is backed up with some level of discussion for inclusion, what's the difference? If someone picks a player that in the opinion of most doesn't belong, very few will back up or second that player suggestion.

And this tells me you could not even be bothered to read what was said.

[AEnigma]

I completely disagree with your assessment, as my views are incredibly consistent

You are “consistent” in the sense that you are ultimately just committing hard to your personal assessments, but your reasoning is either grossly inconsistent or simply couched in “I thought this player was good and these players were not good,” and if pressed your determinations for good and not good will be similarly inconsistent or outright ludicrous (“young Hakeem lacked intensity”).

And then you exacerbate that effect by aggressively challenging anyone with a different determination.

You are just annoyed that they aren't leading to the results you want.

How exactly do you, One_and_Done, with the mighty power of your vote, feel you have prevented “the results I want”. If I am not mistaken, you are the one who has been openly not getting the results you want — hence the antagonism toward half the voting base in every thread.

More lashing out without thought.

I have cited MVP voting as a useful indicator all the way through, and have been critical of pre-93 Hakeem (and Stockton) from back to the top 100 project.

You spent most of 1969 and 1970 railing against it and said you thought Kareem should have won basically every MVP. You will not factor it in 2001 (or with Iverson generally), you will not factor it in 2008 (or with Kobe generally), you will not factor it in 2011, and you would not factor it if we were extending to 2017. On voting generally, you did not factor it for Dominique, did not factor it for Maravich, did not factor it for Tiny Archibald… You pick and choose when it matters.

How can anyone criticise the lack of 'detailed reasoning' in posts for this project, when you're accepting votes with rationales of 1 line, or which reference their 'Baller vow'. I've shown in the top 100 project I'm happy to provide pages of reasoning, but that hasn't been the standard set here.

Nowhere in that comment did I say you were insufficiently detailed.

[penbeast0]

Yes, and while for now all I will do is strongly discourage people from voting that way — at the moment, the one ballot excluding Magic entirely is functionally cancelled out by the one ballot putting Jordan at fifth (restraint noted) — if it continues to be a problem I will be taking firmer measures. This is not supposed to be a project where we throw darts at a board to pick names

Firmer measures?

I thought the whole point of this exercise was to get the opinions of multiple people to draw a consensus opinion, like all-NBA or all-defensive team voting?

Since when does everyone have to vote for certain players - in particular the players you or others that post often have voted for? As long as the player suggestion is backed up with some level of discussion for inclusion, what's the difference? If someone picks a player that in the opinion of most doesn't belong, very few will back up or second that player suggestion.

And while contrarian votes can be and have been sincere

What/who makes a player suggestion/vote contrarian? How about just hearing people out for their reasons.

I am not forbidding contrarian votes when they are properly justified and internally consistent

And just who is to determine when they are "properly justified"? Let me guess.

And especially for players of 4 decades ago?

I'll give you a perfect example. And I can't wait to see how you consider this for being contrarian.

I have seen the name of Fat Lever mentioned just once - just one time - in these last three POY conversations. And while you want this to be just about 1988-89, the same argument for Fat Lever vs. Magic Johnson can be made for any of the four seasons of 1986-87 to 1989-90.

Over the 4 years both played similar minutes (11364/11692), similar games (308/314), and similar min/g (37). Here are some of their statistics over that time:

Lever Magic
2790 2082 rebounds (diff 708)
0787 0522 steals (diff 265)
0662 1170 turnovers (diff 508)

That's a difference of 1481 more ball possessions over 4 seasons for Lever - or 4.8 to 4.7 extra ball possessions per game over 4 long years (dividing by either 308 or 314), playing similar minutes. The league average team ball possession over those 4 seasons was worth 1.065 pts/poss, a bit more for Denver and even more for the Lakers. But no matter how you look at it that right there is more than 4 pts/g in favor of Lever over all that time - per game.

On top of that, outside of steals, blocked shots, and defensive rebounding Lever was the considerably better defender compared to Magic over that time.

Magic shot much better than did Lever over that time but committed far more turnovers so their offensive efficiency was much closer (Magic still better) than if you look at just their shooting percentages. And these 4 years Lever grabbed almost twice as many offensive rebounds that Magic did.

Magic did throw for more assists (3730) than did Lever (2369) but at a lower ast/to ratio (3.58 to 3.19). As a matter of fact, Magic threw for 1361 more assists but while committing 508 more turnovers than Lever, an ast/to ratio of just 2.68 (when the average ast/to ratio for PGs those 4 years was 2.90). So were those 1361 more assists worth it at that low of an ast/to ratio?

it’s probably more just a reflection of how much one cares if people will criticize one’s picks.

Fell free to criticize Lever over Magic.

Like, I don’t even think Patrick Ewing himself would put himself above Michael Jordan in 1988-1989, and same for people like Nance and Adams above Magic

I certainly would not suggest Michael Adams over Magic Johnson, but if you don't believe Larry Nance had as much value to his team as Magic Johnson did then:

- you really don't know who Larry Nance was
- you really don't understand the value of an excellent defender on your team playing 35 min/g scoring 17 pts/g while also being quite possibly the most offensively efficient PF/SF in the league

Because this season Nance was a far better defender than Magic was compared to Magic being a better player on offense than Nance.

Can anybody explain me why people consider Malone over Hakeem here?

Not only did Karl Malone get more votes for MVP than Olajuwon did, he also got more votes for the all-NBA 1st team (got more votes than any player). Plus Utah was the better team, was the better team offensively, and was much better defensively than Houston was this season.

Malone wasn't a rim protector, which is by far the most important defensive ability to have, but he was a bear on defense

One of the best defensive PFs. Yet didn't get named to an all-defensive team for another 8 years.

This post is probably what he's talking about as contrarian votes that are well defended. I think the only thing that AEnigma has said is that when he sees voting that appears to be deliberately designed to not only favor one player but to disfavor another to help the 1st player win, he will take action. I am hopeful that his standard of determining this will be quite clear as this is not an issue where you want to act on a maybe. But he is the OP and can set the standards for his projects so long as they are within reason.

[AEnigma]

Those are what he's talking about as contrarian votes that are well defended I believe. I think the only thing that AEnigma has said is that when he sees voting that appears to be deliberately designed to not only favor one player but to disfavor another to help the 1st player win, he will take action.

Correct. I think I have been and hope to continue being very lenient with the approaches people take, but that is because I think it is good for discussion and for reflecting forum diversity, and not because it is a meant to be a free excuse for people to construct ballots for the sake of forcing a specific result.

[lessthanjake]

it’s probably more just a reflection of how much one cares if people will criticize one’s picks.

Fell free to criticize Lever over Magic.

Like, I don’t even think Patrick Ewing himself would put himself above Michael Jordan in 1988-1989, and same for people like Nance and Adams above Magic

I certainly would not suggest Michael Adams over Magic Johnson, but if you don't believe Larry Nance had as much value to his team as Magic Johnson did then:

- you really don't know who Larry Nance was
- you really don't understand the value of an excellent defender on your team playing 35 min/g scoring 17 pts/g while also being quite possibly the most offensively efficient PF/SF in the league

Because this season Nance was a far better defender than Magic was compared to Magic being a better player on offense than Nance.

Am just quoting this portion of your post, since it is in response to me. Ultimately, I think it’s almost impossible to really *prove* that someone is strategic voting as opposed to just genuinely having idiosyncratic views. Someone engaging in strategic voting can always come up with some sort of rationale to argue that they genuinely hold the viewpoint, even if they don’t really believe it and were just engaging in strategic voting. This makes it essentially impossible to police IMO. AEnigma mentioned potentially enforcing against this sort of thing, but, while in theory that’s probably ideal, it’s almost impossible to do so, because people can always come up with some sort of explanation—however unconvincing it might be. That leaves the arbiter (in this case, AEnigma) trying to make a subjective judgment of whose explanations to believe were genuine. Which brings in that arbiter’s subjective view of what falls into the realm of believable/reasonable—and that is naturally problematic. So can strategic voting be conclusively proven? No, not really. And can it really be enforced against in an unbiased way? Probably not. But I’m not in a position of having to figure out how, if at all, to enforce against this sort of thing. So I'm just calling it as I see it. And, to me, as someone who is aware of the views and history of many/most of the posters here, I have a pretty high degree of certainty that there's strategic voting going on.

If you want to look at one of the things I mentioned as an example (Nance > Magic) and say you think it’s defensible, then I guess that’s fine. Not sure I agree with that as being defensible, but even if I did, you’re explicitly not willing to defend the rest of that same poster’s ballot. And if you’re not willing to defend the rest of the poster’s ballot, then why give the Nance > Magic part of it the benefit of the doubt? Even if you think that’s defensible in isolation, you have to look at it in its full context.

[One_and_Done]

One thing I think people forget about Barkley is how much more you felt him in high stakes games. When I go back and watch Barkley games, he always seems to be killing guys like D.Rob and Mailman. When Barkley’s effort level was high, he felt almost unbeatable. The trade-off was that he inconsistently brought this level of effort for various reasons.

The NBA had never seen a player like Barkley before, and hasn’t really since, which is why it’s the kiss of death to be compared to a unique prospect like Barkley. The closest we’ve seen are Zion and LJ, but they haven’t really had the full skillset of passing, shooting, mobility, and most importantly the ability to stay on the court for the most part. Barkley at his peak was also more athletic than all of them. The NBA had to introduce a back-down rule because he was abusing smaller players in mismatches so much, and that only came in at the end of his career in 99. He was still able to exploit his size and speed advantage during his prime. With a lot of other stars, teams had a plan for how they were going to deal with them. With Barkley there was really nothing you could do.

He was mostly a liability on D, but he was so effective and explosive on offense and the boards that it barely mattered. A lot of people are tempted to use a very binary form of analysis, and say “well, Mailman/Hakeem were much better on D, and still good on O, so they’re better than Barkley because he was bad on D and only good on O". I think for Barkley it didn’t matter much, partly because of the role he had in the 80s. He would go in an hit the boards, and could be hidden on D relatively effectively. He reminds me of KG on the Wolves. Their games were nothing alike, but their situations were. The Sizers management was just horrific in the 80s, they gave Barkley nothing to work with.

[ShaqAttac]

MAGIC
was sweeping everything till he got hurt. best impact and WOWY. MVP. seems easy to me

HAKEEM
Great D and O and win almost as much a MJ with less help,

MJ
team win less than 88 but takes champ to 6. Paul make a good arg for ewing but tbh mj went crazy that series n clamp Isiah so i can't put him lower

Ewing[/n]
Sweeps chuck and wins 50. Takes MJ to 6.

[b]IT
BIRD makes good arg for KJ but IT beat MJ and Magic so I can't put him below.

[kcktiny]

That leaves the arbiter (in this case, AEnigma) trying to make a subjective judgment of whose explanations to believe were genuine.

If you want to have people vote on the best this or the best that but do not want certain players nominated, then make up a list of eligible players you feel should only be considered for possible inclusion and post that list.

But to then allow any and all players to be included who is one person to decide what player selections are, quote, valid? Or contrarian?

you’re explicitly not willing to defend the rest of that same poster’s ballot

Correct.

I have no desire to be involved in the voting. I simply enjoy reading the posts and discussing 80s NBA. As such I comment on what I feel like commenting on. You should too. If you do not wish to comment on a poster's entire posting why should you have to?

And if you’re not willing to defend the rest of the poster’s ballot, then why give the Nance > Magic part of it the benefit of the doubt?

This was the post:

Like, I don’t even think Patrick Ewing himself would put himself above Michael Jordan in 1988-1989, and same for people like Nance and Adams above Magic.

What one is doing here is literally dismissing the idea of Nance possibly being a better player than Magic outright. As if the there is absolutely no chance he could actually be better than Magic. This statement reeks of "I know more than you. Accept it.".

Having watched a ton of NBA in the 80s (and earlier/later) I can tell you unequivocally that Larry Nance was a helluva player, on both offense and defense. And players that are very good to excellent on both ends of the floor help their teams immensely, especially if they play a lot.

It's quite hard to compare players that played different positions, and I usually do not. But if someone is going to dismiss something outright that I know not to be true, I like to comment.

Magic was a great offensive player in 1988-89. But even though he was a better defensive rebounder and had a higher steal rate than Nance did that season, he was nowhere near the overall defender Nance was. Both the Lakers and Cavs went 57-25 that season, and Cleveland was the much better team defensively (101.8 vs. 105.3 pts/100poss allowed).

Again I am not saying Nance was in fact the better player that season, better than Magic, but it's very close. As is Lever vs. Magic.