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

[AEnigma]

Hakeem's Rockets also didn't have a bad roster by a long shot. Thorpe made an all-star game the previous season and deservedly so. Horry, Maxwell, Kenny... these guys all provided great spacing with their shooting. Just because a team doesn't have a lot of big names doesn't mean it was terrible.

^ “Deserved all-star” Thorpe led the Rockets to a 2-10 record without Hakeem last year, while this year the Rockets went 7-3 without him. The 1989 Kings were unaffected when he left and the 1989 Rockets were unaffected when he joined. You are not shy about box scores, and Thorpe was hardly any sort of all-defensive contributor, so seems worth mentioning to you that absolutely no box composite identifies him as a top 25 player. Where exactly is the “all-star” merit?

Using tiny WOWY off samples of 5-10 games to paint supporting casts as 20-win worthy or whatever is just pure silliness. That Houston team was good. And with Hakeem who played all 82 games they were nothing special with 3.57 SRS which is 51.4 Pythagorean Wins. They were a good 10 expected wins worse than the Bulls and Suns so while he did have a worse cast, he also had far worse results.

From 1991-96 the Rockets were 23-37 (31-win pace) without Hakeem, which is both a 33% larger sample than your “Pippen-less Jordan” sample and a comically more relevant one (with 38 of 45 Pippen-less games coming from 1998, where there was literally no other overlap with the 1993 roster).

Ewing led a team of role players like Hakeem but to a much better outcome in both the RS and PS. 5.87 SRS which works out to 57.5 PW and then played the champs very well. Individually too, I don't think Ewing had a much if any worse PS than Hakeem did.

Gee, if only we had some clue what might happen if Hakeem were matched up with the Suns or Knicks.

The more I microanalyze this, the less impressed I am with Hakeem to be honest.

Uh huh, top notch “microanalysis” there.

How do none of you understand that relying on facially terrible arguments only weakens your own position.

[homecourtloss]

Why do these discussions about the 94 Bulls leave out the fact that Bulls added Toni Kukoc and found suitable replacements for the aging and oft-injured rotation guys from the 93 team? Not to mention, the absence of Jordan shifted their style to a grind it out, defense-first game in a league that was increasingly tilting towards defense (4 PPG league average decline from 93 to 94 and the ORTG slipping below 107 for the first time since '83)

I just don't see how the Bulls playing well for a a full season without MJ but with a retooled roster and gameplan is some indictment on his value...especially when you consider the fact that when he returned in 95, a team that was 34-32 suddenly finished the season 13-4 even with his efficiency being putrid. I mean, if even a rusty version of MJ shooting 41% could lift a struggling Bulls team up that much...*shrugs*

Nobody is arguing an indictment on value, but arguing how good the team was without him. Kukoc wasn’t an impact player in the 1994 regular season as he struggled defensively. He did have a great series vs. the Knicks, though. Kerr was a good offensive addition. Myers was dead weight, though, and a negative all season. You essentially replaced Jordan’s usual 3,000 minutes with 2,000 minutes of pretty much useless Myers (he wasn’t even that up good defensively to make up for his non-existent offense). Not sure what other adjustments there were. Cartwright had fallen off of a cliff by now. Pippen and Grant missed 22 games in 1994 as opposed to 11 total by Pippen, Grant, and Jordan in 1993.

2,000 minutes of useless Myers, Grant and Pippen miss 22 games, and STILL they win 55 games and then in the playoffs have the 4th best offensive series in the Bulls’ run from 1991 to 1998.

Bulls’ rORtg in playoff series

1985 vs. Bucks, +5.1
1986 vs. Celtics, +5.7
1987 vs. Celtics, +3.0
1988 vs. Cavs, +3.9
1988 vs. Pistons, -9.5
1989 vs. Cavs, +3.9
1989 vs. Knicks, +8.3
1989 vs. Pistons, -1.6
1990 vs. Bucks, +10.0
1990 vs. Sixers, +8.3
1990 vs. Pistons, -2.1
1991 vs. Knicks, +8.8
1991 vs. Sixers, +10.8
1991 vs. Pistons, +17.0
1991 vs. Lakers, +10.7
1992 vs. Heat, +15.8
1992 vs. Knicks, +7.0
1992 vs. Cavs, +1.2
1992 vs. Blazers, +6.6
1993 vs. Hawks, +10.8
1993 vs. Cavs, +10.4
1993 vs. Knicks, +12.7
1993 vs. Suns, +6.3
1994 vs. Cavs, +13.6
1994 vs. Knicks, +8.5
1995 vs. Hornets, +6.1
1995 vs. Magic , +4.7
1996 vs. Heat, +15.2
1996 vs. Knicks, +1.7
1996 vs. Magic, +11.9
1996 vs. Sonics, +9.2
1997 vs. Bullets, +10.8
1997 vs. Hawks, +12.6
1997 vs. Heat, +3.4
1997 vs. Jazz, +.6
1998 vs. Nets, +10.8
1998 vs. Hornets, +3.6
1998 vs. Pacers, +12.6
1998 vs. Jazz, +.1

[jjgp111292]

Why do these discussions about the 94 Bulls leave out the fact that Bulls added Toni Kukoc and found suitable replacements for the aging and oft-injured rotation guys from the 93 team? Not to mention, the absence of Jordan shifted their style to a grind it out, defense-first game in a league that was increasingly tilting towards defense (4 PPG league average decline from 93 to 94 and the ORTG slipping below 107 for the first time since '83)

I just don't see how the Bulls playing well for a a full season without MJ but with a retooled roster and gameplan is some indictment on his value...especially when you consider the fact that when he returned in 95, a team that was 34-32 suddenly finished the season 13-4 even with his efficiency being putrid. I mean, if even a rusty version of MJ shooting 41% could lift a struggling Bulls team up that much...*shrugs*

Nobody is arguing an indictment on value, but arguing how good the team was without him. Kukoc wasn’t an impact player in the 1994 regular season as he struggled defensively. He did have a great series vs. the Knicks, though. Kerr was a good offensive addition. Myers was dead weight, though, and a negative all season. You essentially replaced Jordan’s usual 3,000 minutes with 2,000 minutes of pretty much useless Myers (he wasn’t even that up good defensively to make up for his non-existent offense). Not sure what other adjustments there were. Cartwright had fallen off of a cliff by now. Pippen and Grant missed 22 games in 1994 as opposed to 11 total by Pippen, Grant, and Jordan in 1993.

2,000 minutes of useless Myers, Grant and Pippen miss 22 games, and STILL they win 55 games and then in the playoffs have the 4th best offensive series in the Bulls’ run from 1991 to 1998.

Bulls’ rORtg in playoff series

1985 vs. Bucks, +5.1
1986 vs. Celtics, +5.7
1987 vs. Celtics, +3.0
1988 vs. Cavs, +3.9
1988 vs. Pistons, -9.5
1989 vs. Cavs, +3.9
1989 vs. Knicks, +8.3
1989 vs. Pistons, -1.6
1990 vs. Bucks, +10.0
1990 vs. Sixers, +8.3
1990 vs. Pistons, -2.1
1991 vs. Knicks, +8.8
1991 vs. Sixers, +10.8
1991 vs. Pistons, +17.0
1991 vs. Lakers, +10.7
1992 vs. Heat, +15.8
1992 vs. Knicks, +7.0
1992 vs. Cavs, +1.2
1992 vs. Blazers, +6.6
1993 vs. Hawks, +10.8
1993 vs. Cavs, +10.4
1993 vs. Knicks, +12.7
1993 vs. Suns, +6.3
1994 vs. Cavs, +13.6
1994 vs. Knicks, +8.5
1995 vs. Hornets, +6.1
1995 vs. Magic , +4.7
1996 vs. Heat, +15.2
1996 vs. Knicks, +1.7
1996 vs. Magic, +11.9
1996 vs. Sonics, +9.2
1997 vs. Bullets, +10.8
1997 vs. Hawks, +12.6
1997 vs. Heat, +3.4
1997 vs. Jazz, +.6
1998 vs. Nets, +10.8
1998 vs. Hornets, +3.6
1998 vs. Pacers, +12.6
1998 vs. Jazz, +.1

Wow, damn...yeah there's pretty much nothing I can say to that Cavs performance, and even the Knicks. Got me there

[homecourtloss]

RPoY vote

1. Hakeem. A carry job all season. Lost to his nemesis in the playoffs, but inklings were there of Horry become a very good player to help. The team really shouldn’t have been a top 3 defense either though Maxwell was a good perimeter defender offset by Kenny Smith’s defense. Then you had Bullsard and slow Herrera out there playing minutes,
2. Jordan. Another great season even if impact was a little lower than before and the motor showed signs of slowing. From data we have, he had an on court rating a little higher than what Grant had in 1994 without Jordan and Pippen missing games AND Myers playing minutes while providing not much. I thought his pull up jumper and post fadeaway was the smoothest ever in this season.
3. Barkley. Refined offensive game, but ultimately showed defensive weakness and wasn’t impactful vs. the Bulls in which if he played like an MVP, the Suns would have won a very close series. The suns were actually better n/off wise with Barkley sitting in a series that had no blowouts or garbage minutes.
4. Ewing. Anchored an all time defense. A little more offensive talent and this team wins a title. Had opportunities in game 3 up 2-0 vs. the bulls when Jordan was bricking though Pippen saved the day.
5. DRob. Some of the singles suggest he should be even higher,

[falcolombardi]

Why do these discussions about the 94 Bulls leave out the fact that Bulls added Toni Kukoc and found suitable replacements for the aging and oft-injured rotation guys from the 93 team? Not to mention, the absence of Jordan shifted their style to a grind it out, defense-first game in a league that was increasingly tilting towards defense (4 PPG league average decline from 93 to 94 and the ORTG slipping below 107 for the first time since '83)

I just don't see how the Bulls playing well for a a full season without MJ but with a retooled roster and gameplan is some indictment on his value...especially when you consider the fact that when he returned in 95, a team that was 34-32 suddenly finished the season 13-4 even with his efficiency being putrid. I mean, if even a rusty version of MJ shooting 41% could lift a struggling Bulls team up that much...*shrugs*

Nobody is arguing an indictment on value, but arguing how good the team was without him. Kukoc wasn’t an impact player in the 1994 regular season as he struggled defensively. He did have a great series vs. the Knicks, though. Kerr was a good offensive addition. Myers was dead weight, though, and a negative all season. You essentially replaced Jordan’s usual 3,000 minutes with 2,000 minutes of pretty much useless Myers (he wasn’t even that up good defensively to make up for his non-existent offense). Not sure what other adjustments there were. Cartwright had fallen off of a cliff by now. Pippen and Grant missed 22 games in 1994 as opposed to 11 total by Pippen, Grant, and Jordan in 1993.

2,000 minutes of useless Myers, Grant and Pippen miss 22 games, and STILL they win 55 games and then in the playoffs have the 4th best offensive series in the Bulls’ run from 1991 to 1998.

Bulls’ rORtg in playoff series

1985 vs. Bucks, +5.1
1986 vs. Celtics, +5.7
1987 vs. Celtics, +3.0
1988 vs. Cavs, +3.9
1988 vs. Pistons, -9.5
1989 vs. Cavs, +3.9
1989 vs. Knicks, +8.3
1989 vs. Pistons, -1.6
1990 vs. Bucks, +10.0
1990 vs. Sixers, +8.3
1990 vs. Pistons, -2.1
1991 vs. Knicks, +8.8
1991 vs. Sixers, +10.8
1991 vs. Pistons, +17.0
1991 vs. Lakers, +10.7
1992 vs. Heat, +15.8
1992 vs. Knicks, +7.0
1992 vs. Cavs, +1.2
1992 vs. Blazers, +6.6
1993 vs. Hawks, +10.8
1993 vs. Cavs, +10.4
1993 vs. Knicks, +12.7
1993 vs. Suns, +6.3
1994 vs. Cavs, +13.6
1994 vs. Knicks, +8.5
1995 vs. Hornets, +6.1
1995 vs. Magic , +4.7
1996 vs. Heat, +15.2
1996 vs. Knicks, +1.7
1996 vs. Magic, +11.9
1996 vs. Sonics, +9.2
1997 vs. Bullets, +10.8
1997 vs. Hawks, +12.6
1997 vs. Heat, +3.4
1997 vs. Jazz, +.6
1998 vs. Nets, +10.8
1998 vs. Hornets, +3.6
1998 vs. Pacers, +12.6
1998 vs. Jazz, +.1

Wow, damn...yeah there's pretty much nothing I can say to that Cavs performance, and even the Knicks. Got me there

Also the 95 bulls had lost grant too and yet were underperforming their expected win record ( 50 win team margins of victory)

[Djoker]

Hakeem's Rockets also didn't have a bad roster by a long shot. Thorpe made an all-star game the previous season and deservedly so. Horry, Maxwell, Kenny... these guys all provided great spacing with their shooting. Just because a team doesn't have a lot of big names doesn't mean it was terrible.

^ “Deserved all-star” Thorpe led the Rockets to a 2-10 record without Hakeem last year, while this year the Rockets went 7-3 without him. The 1989 Kings were unaffected when he left and the 1989 Rockets were unaffected when he joined. You are not shy about box scores, and Thorpe was hardly any sort of all-defensive contributor, so seems worth mentioning to you that absolutely no box composite identifies him as a top 25 player. Where exactly is the “all-star” merit?

He was an 18/10 big scoring on good efficiency and a solid defender when he made the ASG. WOWY sample of 10 games won't swing my perception of a player to any appreciable extent. He is roughly on the level of Divac or Horace Grant.

Using tiny WOWY off samples of 5-10 games to paint supporting casts as 20-win worthy or whatever is just pure silliness. That Houston team was good. And with Hakeem who played all 82 games they were nothing special with 3.57 SRS which is 51.4 Pythagorean Wins. They were a good 10 expected wins worse than the Bulls and Suns so while he did have a worse cast, he also had far worse results.

From 1991-96 the Rockets were 23-37 (31-win pace) without Hakeem, which is both a 33% larger sample than your “Pippen-less Jordan” sample and a comically more relevant one (with 38 of 45 Pippen-less games coming from 1998, where there was literally no other overlap with the 1993 roster).

Yes they played at a 31-win pace without Hakeem but what did they play with Hakeem? 279-153 which is 53-win pace. That's ok but that isn't better than Jordan lifting at 50-win team without him to a 65-win pace.

Ewing led a team of role players like Hakeem but to a much better outcome in both the RS and PS. 5.87 SRS which works out to 57.5 PW and then played the champs very well. Individually too, I don't think Ewing had a much if any worse PS than Hakeem did.

Gee, if only we had some clue what might happen if Hakeem were matched up with the Suns or Knicks.

Hakeem wasn't very good offensively against the Knicks in 1994. He was good against the Suns but the Suns in 1994 and 1995 were a) not as good as in 1993 and b) Jordan in 1993 was flat out better than both Hakeem performances against them.

...

1994 Cavs missing Daugherty, Nance and Hot Rod Williams in the PS is probably an important factoid to include. it was a badly depleted opponent.

[OhayoKD]

So in other words...they struggled to find an identity without MJ before figuring out how to play together and exceeded expectations ! Never seen that before. Nowhere have I said that Pippen wasn't a great player and capable of leading a team on his own, just that this idea that MJ was just some rich man's Adrian Dantley eating off his supporting cast seems like logic that only comes from people that can be charitably described as overindexing on heliocentric ball and at worst, trying to push an agenda for a certain guy and the ideology behind him (an ideaology I actually kinda support!).

Inventing strawmen is fun. There is a certain fanbase which has spent the last 3 days spamming threads attacking project and poster credibility because results didn't go the way they wanted them to. All of whom disengaged under the first sign of pushback, excepting one who disengaged soon after when their first attempt at offering substantive was challenged. You want to argue helios impact signals overrate them, then prove it. The #1 in rs and playoff win percentage is Magic Johnson but I'm sure you have a basis for thinking we "overindex" on heliocentic ball beyond cherrypicked team results and arbitrary tresholds ("yes you won the title, but did you win 70 games!!!!!").

And wouldn't you know, I wouldn't balk at anyone who would put Magic over Jordan! You have me confused with other people.

But you insist his archetype of play leads to lower ceilings, even when the passing is traded more off-ball actions and scoring volume and the ability to anchor defenses...

MJ's impact signals are pretty hard to measure compared to his peers when you consider the fact that from 86-93 he missed a grand total of 7 games with a supporting cast that improved year-by-year while other guys had less reliable help from season to season (and even then, the tiny sample we have looks...pretty favorable to him?). Again, never said that MJ didn't have advantages compared to his peers, but this idea penalizing him for it seems like trying to engineer a problem, and I'm gonna have to echo One_And_Done when I say this bizarro world bredwedwine shtick of yours isn't doing as much convincing for me.

He's being penalised for not improving his teams anywhere near the degree your opinion him suggests he should. Also not sure what you're getting 7 games from. We have 3 and a half seasons worth of full games concentrated over 4 seasons to form a basis for assessing Jordan's teammates. That's about as good of a sample as possible in the sport and even the most generous assumptions don't put him near "perhaps the goat" in 88 or 92, or on a "perhaps goat trajectory" at any point in his career. Now it's 93 and the poster you're echoing has 180'd from the signals mattering alot to barely mattering at all.

I'm assuming the other season is '86? They go from a -4 in MJ-less games that season to +.9 in '87...not spectacular and that version of MJ is plenty flawed as it were, and I'm sure you credit even their improvement more to Charles Oakley's defense.

And do you characterise 88 and 92 Jordan as "plenty flawed"? Because the same exercise does not yield outcomes near what other stars have done repeatedly, nor does it match best marks we have for the likes of...93 Hakeem Olajuwon. Yet peak Hakeem faced with a MJ down-year is apparently not as good. Even though their showcased lift is comparable prime for prime with Olajuwon in a significantly disadvantageous scenario

Then after that we have 94 which I still say is dubious...you pointed out that +4 MJs lift for them in 95 wasn't that great and like...yeah, my entire point was even a crappy version of MJ was able to produce a pretty decent lift in the team's play just through offensive value. And again, given the roster differences I pointed out from the first-three-peat Bulls supporting cast, wouldn't 96 be a more apt comparison to the 93/94 roster?

Obviously Rodman/Harper vs. Horace/Armstrong is a worthwhile debate and I'd lean towards the former given that again, league was tilting towards defense, but even if you want to hedge Jordan's impact, +13.4 vs. +3.3...I mean I ain't no mathemtician but, y'know that looks like a healthy Jordan providing a pretty big lift.

I mean, I'd think 92 would be the most natural comp(+5 with health adjustment, +7 without) but sure whatever

Yes that's great impact (it's +8 if you go by 1995 or stick to games Pippen played in 94 and the SRS is lower but I digress). It's not goat-ish(a certain small forward is popping +15 again and again without expansion-effects or multi-season hopping, can get to +19 if we just use your approach here), and it's not clearing the best stuff we can derive for Hakeem, (93 can literally be put at +15 simply using an adjacent year). No one here is denying Jordan is an all-time-great or under the impression he's just Adriant Dantley. No one is even claiming Jordan, at his best, can't be favored over peak Hakeem or Magic. What we are saying is that in the year he posts sub 50 true shooting in 4 out of 6 games in the conference finals(with his teammates shooting far more efficiently in the close-out), his team and he performs the worst of his title teams, and he has the worst signal of his prime, saying he and peak Hakeem is "neck and neck" is baseless. Especially when you've made signals the biggest component of your ballot and also gave Jordan the #1 when Magic was posting the best signals and winning titles.

Do I think MJ is a defensive anchor like Hakeem or can run an offense like LeBron? Absolutely not. Do I think his scoring prowess, ball protection, decent enough playmaking and defense, and off-ball gravity combined to make him perhaps the GOAT?

"Do I think John Stockton can score or rebound like Jordan? Absolutely not. Do I think his passing prowess, positionally sound if not flashy defense, and floor game could make him perhaps the best player of the 90s?"

The math checks out for an infinite amount of explanations for how the universe works. Plausibility is not evidence.

???????????????
Theoretical Physics, not the most natural analogy though so forget it.

Moreover, a significant "off-ball gravity" effect, the common refrain of "aha ceiling raising" has yet to be documented meaningfully anywhere for perimeter players in the 80s/90s. Early returns are not promising:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=114336565#p114336565
Now people are actually looking for it outside of isolated clips. We're still looking. "Perhaps" assuming having a better jumpshot garuntees a big "off-ball gravity" advantage is dubious, particularly when the better jumpshooter is being left undefended from range(you know the area of the court that creates the most spacing?), is a far worse roller (attacks at the rim tend to require defenders to cover more ground than mid-range jumpshots), and is in a scheme where he is trying to avoid extra defensive attention?

Or maybe just eat up whatever people "who were there" tell you on faith. That works too.

As others in that same thread pointed out, I'm not sure this is saying what you want it to say when the game was substantially different in the 80s/90s and more tilted towards iso-ball.

The game being titled towards players not having significant off-ball gravity does not change they lack significant off-ball gravity.

I know that would require shifting away from the idea that all-time greatness is determined the most by a team being entirely dependent on you to even function, but...

No, it would require evidence (observations with actual explanatory power). And it will also require you to apply logic consistently. If we shall assume that your team overall relying on the totality of your abilities isn't greatness, why should we assume Jordan's teams relying on him to score makes him a great scorer?

Funny how "your team functioning better with you" is only meaningless when that functioning covers things other than what Jordan's great at.

Well it's not a 1-size fits all comparison. A balanced team is far more likely to get itself together to some extent with missing pieces than a team that leans so much on one guy, to the point where value becomes a chicken and egg scenario even though the chicken is definitely more important.

And such teams are extremely rare and hard to come by. At a certain point "punish players who contribute in a wider variety of ways because they need more balanced support" hurts Jordan too. A championship team around Dantley is more balanced than one around Jordan.

I mean hell, we see that with the 98 Bulls still being a +5.6 in the 36 games without Pippen even with MJ playing hurt in the first month of the season.

Sure? I still don't see what that shows in a comparison to Hakeem(or Magic). See, Houston without Otis Thorpe, or Sampson (Or the Lakers as Kareem ages). No one is questioning if Jordan is great.

[OhayoKD]

Why do these discussions about the 94 Bulls leave out the fact that Bulls added Toni Kukoc and found suitable replacements for the aging and oft-injured rotation guys from the 93 team? Not to mention, the absence of Jordan shifted their style to a grind it out, defense-first game in a league that was increasingly tilting towards defense (4 PPG league average decline from 93 to 94 and the ORTG slipping below 107 for the first time since '83)

I just don't see how the Bulls playing well for a a full season without MJ but with a retooled roster and gameplan is some indictment on his value...especially when you consider the fact that when he returned in 95, a team that was 34-32 suddenly finished the season 13-4 even with his efficiency being putrid. I mean, if even a rusty version of MJ shooting 41% could lift a struggling Bulls team up that much...*shrugs*

Nobody is arguing an indictment on value, but arguing how good the team was without him. Kukoc wasn’t an impact player in the 1994 regular season as he struggled defensively. He did have a great series vs. the Knicks, though. Kerr was a good offensive addition. Myers was dead weight, though, and a negative all season. You essentially replaced Jordan’s usual 3,000 minutes with 2,000 minutes of pretty much useless Myers (he wasn’t even that up good defensively to make up for his non-existent offense). Not sure what other adjustments there were. Cartwright had fallen off of a cliff by now. Pippen and Grant missed 22 games in 1994 as opposed to 11 total by Pippen, Grant, and Jordan in 1993.

2,000 minutes of useless Myers, Grant and Pippen miss 22 games, and STILL they win 55 games and then in the playoffs have the 4th best offensive series in the Bulls’ run from 1991 to 1998.

Bulls’ rORtg in playoff series

1985 vs. Bucks, +5.1
1986 vs. Celtics, +5.7
1987 vs. Celtics, +3.0
1988 vs. Cavs, +3.9
1988 vs. Pistons, -9.5
1989 vs. Cavs, +3.9
1989 vs. Knicks, +8.3
1989 vs. Pistons, -1.6
1990 vs. Bucks, +10.0
1990 vs. Sixers, +8.3
1990 vs. Pistons, -2.1
1991 vs. Knicks, +8.8
1991 vs. Sixers, +10.8
1991 vs. Pistons, +17.0
1991 vs. Lakers, +10.7
1992 vs. Heat, +15.8
1992 vs. Knicks, +7.0
1992 vs. Cavs, +1.2
1992 vs. Blazers, +6.6
1993 vs. Hawks, +10.8
1993 vs. Cavs, +10.4
1993 vs. Knicks, +12.7
1993 vs. Suns, +6.3
1994 vs. Cavs, +13.6
1994 vs. Knicks, +8.5
1995 vs. Hornets, +6.1
1995 vs. Magic , +4.7
1996 vs. Heat, +15.2
1996 vs. Knicks, +1.7
1996 vs. Magic, +11.9
1996 vs. Sonics, +9.2
1997 vs. Bullets, +10.8
1997 vs. Hawks, +12.6
1997 vs. Heat, +3.4
1997 vs. Jazz, +.6
1998 vs. Nets, +10.8
1998 vs. Hornets, +3.6
1998 vs. Pacers, +12.6
1998 vs. Jazz, +.1

Wow, damn...yeah there's pretty much nothing I can say to that Cavs performance, and even the Knicks. Got me there

This is sarcastic, right? That cavs team didn't have anyone. People should just stick to the Knicks series (which still makes the point_

[Lebronnygoat]

POY

1. Hakeem
Best defender + most impressive series via his improved playmaking creating a bunch of times for his teammates and elite scoring. I don’t think it’s particularly close.
2. Ewing
Ewing over Jordan because he quite clearly outplayed him h2h, but it’s really due to his last two playoff series being better than Jordan’s last two playoff series (Bulls series ≈ Suns series & Hornets series > Knicks series). I’ll give Jordan the first round and 2nd round vs Pacers is close. Regular season probably Ewing due to anchoring an ATG defense and reaching 60 wins with a bottom 8 offense in the league
3. Jordan
Drob would have a case over Jordan but I would like to see more impressiveness in the playoffs. Though, am not sure if Jordan is a better player.
4. Drob
Honestly it’s close and Drob could be 3 but his 1st round is just very lackluster but picks it up vs the Suns, though not quite enough to outshine Jordan’s finals and first round.
5. Barkley
I can’t find anyone to over take the great run Barkley had.

[Djoker]

The 1994 Bulls were pretty significantly worse than the 1993 Bulls.

1993 Bulls - 6.19 SRS --> 58.3 Pythagorean Wins (in 78 games with Jordan - 7.21 SRS --> 60.7 Pythagorean Wins)
1994 Bulls - 2.87 SRS --> 49.5 Pythagorean Wins

So looking at SRS which is a much better predictor of team quality than W-L record, the 1994 Bulls are about 10 wins worse.

And they were 55 pythagorean wins with Pippen, curious how health only mattered for the 93 Bulls. A barely POY-worthy signal from a blatantly uneven process. Great start.

You're one comparing apples and oranges here bud. I simply compared the team with Jordan to the team without him.

If you want to compare healthy SRS, then we should do the same for the Bulls with Jordan. The 1993 Bulls were at 61 PW when healthy. From 1991-1998, the Bulls were at 53 Pythagorean Wins when healthy without Jordan. With him healthy, they were at 67 Pythagorean Wins so once again a roughly 15-game lift with the "healthy team" methodology.

Compared to the Knicks in the PS:

1993 Bulls +4.7 MOV (series won in 6)
1994 Bulls +1.2 MOV (series lost in 7)

Yeah, really screams "this is a GOAT tier playoff run from the clear goat peak perimiter player".

It's enough to be a clear difference. 3.5 MOV isn't small potatoes. Not to mention the 1993 team proceeded to beat the other best team in the league after that series and win the title.

And of course in the PS, we should compare the Bulls with Jordan to the Bulls without Jordan from 1991-1998. It's not even close.

The no calls in Game 5 get a lot of publicity but the Kukoc game-winner in Game 3 is glossed over. If Toni misses that shot, the Bulls are down 0-3 in the series and possibly get swept.

No. If Toni misses the shot the game would have gone to overtime. A few plays would have also swung game 1 and 2 which the Knicks won despite the Bulls leading entering the 4th. Perhaps if Pippen isn't sent to the bench at the end of the third quarter of game 7, Ewing doesn't get a groove and the Bulls win anyway.

Hypotheticals are fun aren't they.

I don't care for hypotheticals. It's just that Jordan detractors always bring up Game 5 and nothing else. It was a close series. The Bulls lost.

Then there are other factors to consider:
- the 1993 Bulls coasted in the RS; after two straight title runs and the Olympics, the team was just waiting for the PS

Ah, but after three straight title-runs, a superstar who hated his front-office, and the acqusition of a key role player said superstar also hated(they tried to trade him for that guy earlier), the 1994 Bulls were. None of that was worth mentioning though

team of all the championship Bulls teams with Jordan in both the RS and PS; if we look at the complete WOWY record of the championship Bulls, Jordan is worth about 15 wins on average which doesn't seem earth-shattering until you realize that the team with him played at a 65-win pace; elevating a 50-win roster by 15 wins is easily more impressive than elevating a say 30-win roster by 20 wins

Show your work please.

My work for why it's more impressive. It pretty clearly is because 50-win (3 SRS) teams have little title equity. 65-win (10 SRS) teams have A TON of title equity. A player lifting a 50-win roster by 15 wins is very valuable to winning championships.

Hakeem's Rockets also didn't have a bad roster by a long shot. Thorpe made an all-star game the previous season and deservedly so. Horry, Maxwell, Kenny... these guys all provided great spacing with their shooting.

Yes, Otis Thorpe
https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/1993-houston-rockets-record-without-otis-thorpe
The Houston Rockets had a record of 7-3 without Otis Thorpe in 1992-93.
A real number 2.

Tiny samples...

Just because a team doesn't have a lot of big names doesn't mean it was terrible. Using tiny WOWY off samples of 5-10 games to paint supporting casts as 20-win worthy or whatever is just pure silliness. That Houston team was good.

Using direct evidence is terrible. Using the reputation of players is also terrible (unless it's time to discredit the actual best perimiter player ever). But just going by how good Djoker tells us the team is?

Now that's real basketball analysis. Just like pretending the Bulls were 3 points down in game 3 as opposed to 2.

It's funny to give the 1994 Bulls a pass for losing in a close series and then simultaneously praise Hakeem for winning two titles by the skin of his teeth. 1994 WCSF, 1994 Finals. 1995 R1, 1995 WCSF and 1995 WCF were all very very close series decided on a few plays. With slightly worse luck, we may be discussing if Hakeem is one of the best ringless players of all time.

[AEnigma]

Hakeem's Rockets also didn't have a bad roster by a long shot. Thorpe made an all-star game the previous season and deservedly so. Horry, Maxwell, Kenny... these guys all provided great spacing with their shooting. Just because a team doesn't have a lot of big names doesn't mean it was terrible.

^ “Deserved all-star” Thorpe led the Rockets to a 2-10 record without Hakeem last year, while this year the Rockets went 7-3 without him. The 1989 Kings were unaffected when he left and the 1989 Rockets were unaffected when he joined. You are not shy about box scores, and Thorpe was hardly any sort of all-defensive contributor, so seems worth mentioning to you that absolutely no box composite identifies him as a top 25 player. Where exactly is the “all-star” merit?

He was an 18/10 big scoring on good efficiency and a solid defender when he made the ASG. WOWY sample of 10 games won't swing my perception of a player to any appreciable extent. He is roughly on the level of Divac or Horace Grant.

Both Grant and Vlade were much better passers and defenders. Thorpe was closer to Kevin Willis (also a 1992 all-star, averaging more points and rebounds than Thorpe) or young Oakley in actual impact, and if anything both of them have a lot more room for confidence on that end. This is pretty shameless.

Using tiny WOWY off samples of 5-10 games to paint supporting casts as 20-win worthy or whatever is just pure silliness. That Houston team was good. And with Hakeem who played all 82 games they were nothing special with 3.57 SRS which is 51.4 Pythagorean Wins. They were a good 10 expected wins worse than the Bulls and Suns so while he did have a worse cast, he also had far worse results.

From 1991-96 the Rockets were 23-37 (31-win pace) without Hakeem, which is both a 33% larger sample than your “Pippen-less Jordan” sample and a comically more relevant one (with 38 of 45 Pippen-less games coming from 1998, where there was literally no other overlap with the 1993 roster).

Yes they played at a 31-win pace without Hakeem but what did they play with Hakeem? 279-153 which is 53-win pace. That's ok but that isn't better than Jordan lifting at 50-win team without him to a 65-win pace.

It literally is. Hakeem’s +6.3 net over that sample is larger than what you have for Jordan even before getting into how Hakeem is a more significant postseason riser. However, you want to give Jordan extra credit, so you just arbitrarily side with the guy playing on the more successful team:

50-win (3 SRS) teams have little title equity. 65-win (10 SRS) teams have A TON of title equity.

The question was not which team is better; the question was why is it demonstrably more impressive for Jordan to lift a 50-win team to 65-wins and six titles than for Hakeem to lift a 31-win team to 53-wins and two titles.

What you want to do, without taking the time to formulate your thoughts to outright say this, is take the good team redundancy approach to excuse that — again ignoring that you just claimed Hakeem had a really good team despite all evidence to the contrary… — but then that would require the Bulls to not have a massive scoring vacuum without Jordan. He is not being disadvantaged here by sharing a role and needing to scale anything down.

On that note, you tellingly did not take this approach back when Magic was lifting his teams well above Jordan’s while having a more natural replacement in Michael Cooper than “Pete Myers / nobody”.

Ewing led a team of role players like Hakeem but to a much better outcome in both the RS and PS. 5.87 SRS which works out to 57.5 PW and then played the champs very well. Individually too, I don't think Ewing had a much if any worse PS than Hakeem did.

Gee, if only we had some clue what might happen if Hakeem were matched up with the Suns or Knicks.

Hakeem wasn't very good offensively against the Knicks in 1994.

Do you just go fully primeval whenever you see Jordan challenged, or are you being deliberately disingenuous. Or maybe both.

1) What happened to your constant focus on relative efficiency? Opponents scored at 50% true shooting against the Knicks. Hakeem scored 26.9 points on 55.6% true shooting and was very involved in the passing game.

2) This is a non-sequitur. Hakeem grossly outplayed Ewing (unlike 1993 Jordan), his team directly beat Ewing’s, and even if Hakeem “wasn’t very good offensively” (again, patently false), he held the Knicks six points below their regular season offensive rating.

He was good against the Suns but the Suns in 1994 and 1995 were a) not as good as in 1993 and b) Jordan in 1993 was flat out better than both Hakeem performances against them.

He certainly scored better. Maybe you should be honest and admit that is what really matters to you instead of trying some sloppy sleight of hand.

[OhayoKD]

The 1994 Bulls were pretty significantly worse than the 1993 Bulls.

1993 Bulls - 6.19 SRS --> 58.3 Pythagorean Wins (in 78 games with Jordan - 7.21 SRS --> 60.7 Pythagorean Wins)
1994 Bulls - 2.87 SRS --> 49.5 Pythagorean Wins

So looking at SRS which is a much better predictor of team quality than W-L record, the 1994 Bulls are about 10 wins worse.

And they were 55 pythagorean wins with Pippen, curious how health only mattered for the 93 Bulls. A barely POY-worthy signal from a blatantly uneven process. Great start.

You're one comparing apples and oranges here bud. I simply compared the team with Jordan to the team without him.

If you want to compare healthy SRS, then we should do the same for the Bulls with Jordan. The 1993 Bulls were at 61 PW when healthy.

so 6 pythagorean wins. Incredible stuff. I don't know what the "prime sample" is supposed to be doing here. We're looking at 93.

From 1991-1998, the Bulls were at 53 Pythagorean Wins when healthy without Jordan. With him healthy, they were at 67 Pythagorean Wins so once again a roughly 15-game lift with the "healthy team" methodology.

Compared to the Knicks in the PS:

1993 Bulls +4.7 MOV (series won in 6)
1994 Bulls +1.2 MOV (series lost in 7)

Yeah, really screams "this is a GOAT tier playoff run from the clear goat peak perimiter player".

It's enough to be a clear difference. 3.5 MOV isn't small potatoes. Not to mention the 1993 team proceeded to beat the other best team in the league after that series and win the title.

In this context? It's tiny potatoes.

The no calls in Game 5 get a lot of publicity but the Kukoc game-winner in Game 3 is glossed over. If Toni misses that shot, the Bulls are down 0-3 in the series and possibly get swept.

No. If Toni misses the shot the game would have gone to overtime. A few plays would have also swung game 1 and 2 which the Knicks won despite the Bulls leading entering the 4th. Perhaps if Pippen isn't sent to the bench at the end of the third quarter of game 7, Ewing doesn't get a groove and the Bulls win anyway.

Hypotheticals are fun aren't they.

I don't care for hypotheticals. It's just that Jordan detractors always bring up Game 5 and nothing else. It was a close series. The Bulls lost.

So strawman. Great.

Then there are other factors to consider:
- the 1993 Bulls coasted in the RS; after two straight title runs and the Olympics, the team was just waiting for the PS

Ah, but after three straight title-runs, a superstar who hated his front-office, and the acqusition of a key role player said superstar also hated(they tried to trade him for that guy earlier), the 1994 Bulls were. None of that was worth mentioning though

team of all the championship Bulls teams with Jordan in both the RS and PS; if we look at the complete WOWY record of the championship Bulls, Jordan is worth about 15 wins on average which doesn't seem earth-shattering until you realize that the team with him played at a 65-win pace; elevating a 50-win roster by 15 wins is easily more impressive than elevating a say 30-win roster by 20 wins

Show your work please.

My work for why it's more impressive. It pretty clearly is because 50-win (3 SRS) teams have little title equity. 65-win (10 SRS) teams have A TON of title equity. A player lifting a 50-win roster by 15 wins is very valuable to winning championships.

And your basis for believing a player lifting a 30 win team by 20 wins becomes 75% as valuable on a 50 win team is?

Hakeem's Rockets also didn't have a bad roster by a long shot. Thorpe made an all-star game the previous season and deservedly so. Horry, Maxwell, Kenny... these guys all provided great spacing with their shooting.

Yes, Otis Thorpe
https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/1993-houston-rockets-record-without-otis-thorpe
The Houston Rockets had a record of 7-3 without Otis Thorpe in 1992-93.
A real number 2.

Tiny samples...[/quote]
Against no samples. It is what it is.

Just because a team doesn't have a lot of big names doesn't mean it was terrible. Using tiny WOWY off samples of 5-10 games to paint supporting casts as 20-win worthy or whatever is just pure silliness. That Houston team was good.

Using direct evidence is terrible. Using the reputation of players is also terrible (unless it's time to discredit the actual best perimiter player ever). But just going by how good Djoker tells us the team is?

Now that's real basketball analysis. Just like pretending the Bulls were 3 points down in game 3 as opposed to 2.

It's funny to give the 1994 Bulls a pass for losing in a close series and then simultaneously praise Hakeem for winning two titles by the skin of his teeth. 1994 WCSF, 1994 Finals. 1995 R1, 1995 WCSF and 1995 WCF were all very very close series decided on a few plays. With slightly worse luck, we may be discussing if Hakeem is one of the best ringless players of all time.

The Bulls are not being given a pass or any value-judgement really. They're simply being judged for their performance as it was. They played +6 basketball against the Knicks. Hakeem's rockets played +7.5 basketball in the postseason from 93-95. The former is much better than your potrayal of peak jordan's impact would suggest, never mind 93 MJ, and the latter marks Hakeem as even better than what he already looks like. A rival for Jordan at his apex, not Jordan on his way down.

[One_and_Done]

If people vote Hakeem 1st, I get it. He's almost tied with Jordan in my book. The Ewing over Jordan votes baffle me. In the first 6 years of his career we had a chance to see what sort of lift he gave to a non-stacked team; the Knicks averaged 36 wins a year over that stretch. This is the guy who has 'the Ewing effect' named after him, basically the phenomenon of your team playing better without you. I think all that is a little harsh on Ewing, but better than Michael Jordan? Come on. He wasn't even better than D.Rob or rookie Shaq (who improved the Magic from 21 to 41 wins). Ewing just had the luxury of a deep support cast from 92 onwards.

[AEnigma]

Ewing theory is completly BS... at least until he was 36 years old. In 1986 he missed 32 games and NYK without him were worse by 6.2 efficiency pts (Ewing improved offense by 1 and defense by 5,2).

1987: 19 games missed, -7 without Ewing (0.4 offense, 6,6 defense)

1996: 6 games missed, -10.6 without Ewing (he improved defense by 12.2 drtg! but offense was worse with him by 1.6)

1998: 56 games missed, -5.4 without Ewing (he improved defense by 7.3 but offense was worse with him by 1.9)

The 1999 Knicks making the Finals without Ewing (after upsetting the best team in the conference with Ewing) does not affect my assessment of prime Ewing.

Rather than another ill-considered citation to a principle you assume to be true, maybe you could engage with the primary criticism made by Ewing voters that Ewing might have been better than Jordan in the conference finals.

[One_and_Done]

I don't think focussing on 1 series, where the players didn't even match up against each other, is the best approach (especially not when the player being criticised won, and generally killed that team over the years).

Jordan in the 93 playoffs averaged 46.1pp100 on 553 TS% at a 119 Ortg. I think he clearly excelled. He also provided valuable defense, even if it wasn't the same D a rim protector can bring. Jordan also had 9rp100 and 8ap100.

Ewing's playoff numbers are certainly not comparable on offense (33.6pp100 on 535 TS%, Ortg 109). On D his playoff Drtg of 103 is notably worse than the Knicks RS Drtg of 99.7, including Ewing's own RS Drtg of 94. I dunno man, it looks to me like Ewing's D was notably less effective in the playoffs. While we shouldn't take this at face value, Jordan's playoff Drtg was 105, so barely below Ewing.

[lessthanjake]

Remarkably little talk here of Jordan’s performance in the actual NBA Finals, where Jordan put up an astonishing 41 PPG—the highest average ever in a Finals series—on +2.6% rTS% (and with very few turnovers, as well), while his co-star shot at an abysmal -7.3 rTS% and the supporting cast as a whole had a negative rTS% (though the catch-and-shoot guys shot well). This was an enormous series for Jordan, which, having come in the NBA Finals, surely tips the balance for him in terms of POY. To state the obvious, it’s not like this was one of those years where, due to a weak conference, the Finals opponent was a step down. The Finals opponent had the best record in the NBA and a 6.27 SRS, and was the pre-playoffs title favorite (even ahead of the Bulls). It also was not one of those quintessential superstar-less teams that we often see crumble in the playoffs, but rather had an all-time great that won MVP that year, on top of a roster that had been a perennial contender for years prior. And, of course, the series was a pretty close one (albeit finished off in 6 games). It’s very hard for me to see how someone who did that in the Finals against a strong Finals opponent wouldn’t be POY, especially when the other main contenders being discussed didn’t even make the Finals or even necessarily make the business end of the playoffs. It’s not like it was in any way some fluke series in the Finals from someone, given that obviously Jordan was great the rest of the year too.

I’m not a voter, but for me at least, I think it’d take something extraordinary to take POY away from a top-tier all-time great in their prime who put up a genuinely historic Finals performance in a Finals win. And I just don’t see that at all in 1993. Hakeem was obviously a great player in 1993, but it’s hard for me to conceptualize giving the 1993 POY to someone who led his pretty healthy team to a 3.57 RS SRS while losing in the second round of the playoffs (and to a team that then lost in the next round to the Finals loser), and who didn’t even really go out in some blaze of absolute statistical glory while doing so. There are some years where a great player who did something like that with a relatively mediocre supporting cast might actually deserve POY, but IMO clearly not in a year where a prime ATG put up 41 PPG in a Finals win.

[Djoker]

Both Grant and Vlade were much better passers and defenders. Thorpe was closer to Kevin Willis (also a 1992 all-star, averaging more points and rebounds than Thorpe) or young Oakley in actual impact, and if anything both of them have a lot more room for confidence on that end. This is pretty shameless.

Thorpe was a good player. OhayoKD admitted that the Rockets actually ran their offense through him at many points in the Seattle series. This isn't such an important point to expand on further though.

The question was not which team is better; the question was why is it demonstrably more impressive for Jordan to lift a 50-win team to 65-wins and six titles than for Hakeem to lift a 31-win team to 53-wins and two titles.

What you want to do, without taking the time to formulate your thoughts to outright say this, is take the good team redundancy approach to excuse that — again ignoring that you just claimed Hakeem had a really good team despite all evidence to the contrary… — but then that would require the Bulls to not have a massive scoring vacuum without Jordan. He is not being disadvantaged here by sharing a role and needing to scale anything down.

On that note, you tellingly did not take this approach back when Magic was lifting his teams well above Jordan’s while having a more natural replacement in Michael Cooper than “Pete Myers / nobody”.

It's better because lifting better teams is much harder. Once you get to 65-win pace, that's basically the ceiling. Exactly 10 teams in history have SRS > 10 and three of them are Jordan's Bulls.

Magic lifted good Lakers teams to ~7 SRS. That's not exactly applicable to what we're talking about here.

And what did Hakeem do from 1996-1998 while Jordan was threepeating? He certainly had a pretty good cast in Houston in those years. Of course we pretend they don't exist and Hakeem gets no blame for his super team with Barkley and Drexler not working out. The 1995 team though without Barkley was also really really talented and they ended up winning by the skin of their teeth.

Do you just go fully primeval whenever you see Jordan challenged, or are you being deliberately disingenuous. Or maybe both.

1) What happened to your constant focus on relative efficiency? Opponents scored at 50% true shooting against the Knicks. Hakeem scored 26.9 points on 55.6% true shooting and was very involved in the passing game.

2) This is a non-sequitur. Hakeem grossly outplayed Ewing (unlike 1993 Jordan), his team directly beat Ewing’s, and even if Hakeem “wasn’t very good offensively” (again, patently false), he held the Knicks six points below their regular season offensive rating.

He certainly scored better. Maybe you should be honest and admit that is what really matters to you instead of trying some sloppy sleight of hand.

Jordan and Ewing don't even play the same position.

Jordan is also a far superior ball-handler and playmaker compared to Hakeem, not just scorer. Per Thinking Basketball, 1993 Jordan had a Box OC of 12.4 and 1993 Hakeem had 5.0. That's two and a half times more shots created for teammates. Add that to averaging 9 ppg more on similar efficiency and with way fewer turnovers and it's just not close. There is a chasm between Jordan and Hakeem on offense. A CHASM...

1993 Playoff Averages
Hakeem: 23.5 pts/75 on +3.0 rTS, 5.0 Box OC, 10.8% cTOV
Jordan: 32.3 pts/75 on +2.9 rTS, 12.4 Box OC, 5.2% cTOV

[AEnigma]

… 119 Ortg…
… playoff Drtg of 103…
… RS Drtg of 94…
… Jordan's playoff Drtg was 105, so barely below Ewing.

Yet again, those are box composites. Maybe Djoker has Jordan’s actual oRtg and dRtg numbers for that series, but what you see in the per 100 tab on BBR is just a formula on par with GameScore.

[Cavsfansince84]

Remarkably little talk here of Jordan’s performance in the actual NBA Finals, where Jordan put up an astonishing 41 PPG—the highest average ever in a Finals series—on +2.6% rTS% (and with very few turnovers, as well), while his co-star shot at an abysmal -7.3 rTS% and the supporting cast as a whole had a negative rTS% (though the catch-and-shoot guys shot well). This was an enormous series for Jordan, which, having come in the NBA Finals, surely tips the balance for him in terms of POY. To state the obvious, it’s not like this was one of those years where, due to a weak conference, the Finals opponent was a step down. The Finals opponent had the best record in the NBA and a 6.27 SRS, and was the pre-playoffs title favorite (even ahead of the Bulls). It also was not one of those quintessential superstar-less teams that we often see crumble in the playoffs, but rather had an all-time great that won MVP that year, on top of a roster that had been a perennial contender for years prior. And, of course, the series was a pretty close one (albeit finished off in 6 games). It’s very hard for me to see how someone who did that in the Finals against a strong Finals opponent wouldn’t be POY, especially when the other main contenders being discussed didn’t even make the Finals or even necessarily make the business end of the playoffs. It’s not like it was in any way some fluke series in the Finals from someone, given that obviously Jordan was great the rest of the year too.

I’m not a voter, but for me at least, I think it’d take something extraordinary to take POY away from a top-tier all-time great in their prime who put up a genuinely historic Finals performance in a Finals win. And I just don’t see that at all in 1993. Hakeem was obviously a great player in 1993, but it’s hard for me to conceptualize giving the 1993 POY to someone who led his pretty healthy team to a 3.57 RS SRS while losing in the second round of the playoffs (and to a team that then lost in the next round to the Finals loser), and who didn’t even really go out in some blaze of absolute statistical glory while doing so. There are some years where a great player who did something like that with a relatively mediocre supporting cast might actually deserve POY, but IMO clearly not in a year where a prime ATG put up 41 PPG in a Finals win.

I get what you are saying here(even though I'm not a voter either) but at the same time its basically the equivalent of someone voting MJ over Magic in 88 I'd say(except for the 41ppg finals). So my question is if you would feel the same way about MJ being ahead of Magic in 88 as a huge slight as well.

[lessthanjake]

Remarkably little talk here of Jordan’s performance in the actual NBA Finals, where Jordan put up an astonishing 41 PPG—the highest average ever in a Finals series—on +2.6% rTS% (and with very few turnovers, as well), while his co-star shot at an abysmal -7.3 rTS% and the supporting cast as a whole had a negative rTS% (though the catch-and-shoot guys shot well). This was an enormous series for Jordan, which, having come in the NBA Finals, surely tips the balance for him in terms of POY. To state the obvious, it’s not like this was one of those years where, due to a weak conference, the Finals opponent was a step down. The Finals opponent had the best record in the NBA and a 6.27 SRS, and was the pre-playoffs title favorite (even ahead of the Bulls). It also was not one of those quintessential superstar-less teams that we often see crumble in the playoffs, but rather had an all-time great that won MVP that year, on top of a roster that had been a perennial contender for years prior. And, of course, the series was a pretty close one (albeit finished off in 6 games). It’s very hard for me to see how someone who did that in the Finals against a strong Finals opponent wouldn’t be POY, especially when the other main contenders being discussed didn’t even make the Finals or even necessarily make the business end of the playoffs. It’s not like it was in any way some fluke series in the Finals from someone, given that obviously Jordan was great the rest of the year too.

I’m not a voter, but for me at least, I think it’d take something extraordinary to take POY away from a top-tier all-time great in their prime who put up a genuinely historic Finals performance in a Finals win. And I just don’t see that at all in 1993. Hakeem was obviously a great player in 1993, but it’s hard for me to conceptualize giving the 1993 POY to someone who led his pretty healthy team to a 3.57 RS SRS while losing in the second round of the playoffs (and to a team that then lost in the next round to the Finals loser), and who didn’t even really go out in some blaze of absolute statistical glory while doing so. There are some years where a great player who did something like that with a relatively mediocre supporting cast might actually deserve POY, but IMO clearly not in a year where a prime ATG put up 41 PPG in a Finals win.

I get what you are saying here(even though I'm not a voter either) but at the same time its basically the equivalent of someone voting MJ over Magic in 88 I'd say(except for the 41ppg finals). So my question is if you would feel the same way about MJ being ahead of Magic in 88 as a huge slight as well.

I think the “except for the 41ppg finals” part is a really big caveat here. It isn’t necessarily always the case that a prime ATG who won the finals should be POY (though that’ll usually be the case). But when a prime ATG wins the finals with a genuinely historic finals performance, it’s hard for me to conceptualize not giving that person POY. I don’t think Magic 1988 rises to that level (heck, Magic wasn’t even voted Finals MVP in 1988—though I think that was probably wrong). That said, I do think it’s perfectly defensible to vote for Magic for POY in 1988—voting for a prime ATG who won the finals is essentially always going to be perfectly defensible. And, indeed, in the 2010 POY project, Magic got 8 first-place votes out of 21 votes. It was a close vote, and that seems totally fair to me. I wouldn’t at all regard it as a “huge slight” to vote for Magic over Jordan that year. In fact, I don’t think that vote would be clear cut for me personally—though I’ve not really delved into it much. And, to be clear, if we ratcheted up Magic’s 1988 Finals performance to make it genuinely historic, I’d regard Magic as the clear-cut answer.