Retro Player of the Year 1998-99 UPDATE — Tim Duncan

[One_and_Done]

Go watch the 99 finals and tell me how LJ was even the best Knick. He wasn't. He wasn't even the 2nd best Knick. Sabonis on here is equally bizarre, he wasn't even the best Blazer, or even close.

why u keep tellin ppl to watch stuff u never watched

There's literally a link of me breaking down part of a game from the finals on page 1. Larry Johnson was wearing a girdle that was charitably described as a back brace, and looked like a hobbled gnome trying to match up with TD. He also actually had serious back issues that left him a shell of his former self. He wasn't a top 20 player this year.

[70sFan]

Go watch the 99 finals and tell me how LJ was even the best Knick. He wasn't. He wasn't even the 2nd best Knick. Sabonis on here is equally bizarre, he wasn't even the best Blazer, or even close.

why u keep tellin ppl to watch stuff u never watched

He literally made a thread about watching one of these games with notes about each play.

[konr0167]

1. Duncan

Yeah he’s the best. Should have MVP. Deserved FMVP. Dominant playoff run. Biggest reason by alot Spurs are like 40 wins better than they were 2 years ago. He was the bitw last year arguably and his teammates got worse and the Spurs just run everyone down anyway. If his name was Shaq or MJ people would probably be calling him it a perfect season lol. Instead I’m hearing you guys are putting Drob higher? Just lol. Arguably the most impressive season of the 90s and it’s literally his 2nd year.

2. Alonzo Mourning

2nd in MVP and Miami are +5.11 SRS. Lose in round 1 but it’s not really Alonzo’s fault. he's like 21.6 and 8.2 on 57.1% ts and holds ewing to 14.6 and 10.8 on 47.5% ts. Also given they make the finals without Ewing I think it’s a excusable loss.


3. Shaq

2nd best rs player but Duncan just cooks the **** out out of him. Man likes getting swept what can I say. He still might be t3 because 99 is kind of a **** year. Tbf pretty much all of the 90s are **** years

4. KG

Takes a game from Duncan and probably the best skillset. Doesn’t win alot in the RS but that’s pretty understandable lol


5. Malone

Malone was kind of ass in the offs. Barely beats a 27-23 kings team while having just 23 ppg on 48.8% ts then losses to a relatively same strength blazers team averaging just 20 ppg on 49.6% ts. but i have to credit him for being a t3 regular season player ig.
.

[AEnigma]

Offensive Player of the Year

1. Tim Duncan

The Spurs offense was unspectacular, but well rounded this season, being in the top 16 of eFG, turnover percentage, offensive rebounding, and free throws per field goal attempt. However, they improved in the playoffs, as Duncan led the team in points and offensive rebounds, while being second in assists, as he won his first championship.

2. Grant Hill

Hill had a superb season, leading the Pistons in points and assists on fine efficiency, and being a good rebounder. Similar to the Spurs, the team was in the top 15 of eFG, offensive rebounds, and free throws per field goal attempt, while their turnover percentage was bad, but not bottom of the barrel. Though Hill lost in the first round, it seems clear that the team wouldn’t have even made the playoffs without him.

3. Arvydas Sabonis

The Trail Blazers offense was even more well rounded than the Spurs, being in the top 13 of the aforementioned stats, with the team managing to reach the Conference Finals. Sabonis was the best player on the Blazers, being one of their most efficient scorers, and 2nd on the team in assists and offensive rebounds, despite his low amount of minutes.

Player of the Year

1. Tim Duncan
2. Alonzo Mourning
3. Arvydas Sabonis

Besides their excellent offense, the Trailblazers had one of the league’s best defenses, and once again Sabonis was the best defensive rebounder and shot blocker on the team despite his limited minutes, allowing him to provide value even when his efficiency declined in the playoffs.

4. Dikembe Mutombo

Dikembe wasn’t the offensive player Mourning was, but the Hawks were in the top 4 of offensive rebounding and fouls per field goal attempt, while being 12th in turnover percentage. Their only weakness was eFG, as Dikembe was literally the only starter who played in over 36 games who had a positive true shooting percentage. The man was clearly the most important player on the Hawks by far.

5. Larry Johnson

Johnson was probably the best player on the surprise Conference champion Knicks, as Patrick Ewing missed significant time with an achilles problem. Johnson was one of only two starters to have a positive eFG, and managed to stay somewhat efficient in the playoffs, as well as hitting a game winning four point play in the Conference Finals.

You need to explain the glaring Shaq and Malone omissions here.

As a reminder:

The rules here are that you've got to use the same type of thinking for all 5 votes. I understand putting more thought into #1 than #5, but I don't want PJ Brown votes. Voters do Brown type votes to give a guy an honorable mention. Makes sense if people only care about who finishes 1st, but I've been clear that I want to measure more than that. I've been trying to encourage literal "honorable mentions" to serve that purpose, and I'd ask that people use that as the way they honor guys who did something special but who aren't actually a top 5 guy that year.

You cite “well-rounded” offences for the Spurs and Blazers while ignoring that the Lakers and Jazz were both top three offences (with the Lakers being “top 13” in all four offensive factors, so their exclusion is nonsensical even by that invented standard). You say Sabonis’s defence keeps him top three even when his offence fades, but ignore that the Blazers had the worst defensive and overall team performance against the Spurs. Staying on Sabonis, you have previously used minutes as a way to elevate players, but suddenly no longer care.

Johnson led the NBA in minutes
…
[Kidd] also played 8 more minutes per game than McDyess, while having a plus-minus higher by 123

And you say you feel the regular season should matter more than usual… then completely ignore the second-best regular season team.

This should not be a recurring issue with you.

[B-Mitch 30]

You need to explain the glaring Shaq and Malone omissions here.

My issue with Shaq is mostly a dislike of his abysmal free throw shooting, as well as the Lakers not doing particularly well in the playoffs. As for Malone, while Utah's offense was average or near the top of most stat categories, they had one of the worst turnover percentages in the league, making me not particularly feel like voting for him. In regards to other discrepancies in my voting, I think playing more minutes matters if everything else is equal. The thing with Sabonis is that he was the most productive players on the Blazers despite playing less than 30 minutes per game. Like you said, he didn't do particularly well against the Spurs, but that doesn't invalidate what he accomplished in the regular season and previous three playoff rounds.

[jjgp111292]

So...somehow Shaq's bad free throw shooting overrides the wealth of superior value he brings in comparison to Sabonis????? And Karl Malone anchoring the third best offense in the league doesn't matter because the offense...had a weakness????

[AEnigma]

You need to explain the glaring Shaq and Malone omissions here.

My issue with Shaq is mostly a dislike of his abysmal free throw shooting, as well as the Lakers not doing particularly well in the playoffs. As for Malone, while Utah's offense was average or near the top of most stat categories, they had one of the worst turnover percentages in the league, making me not particularly feel like voting for him. In regards to other discrepancies in my voting, I think playing more minutes matters if everything else is equal. The thing with Sabonis is that he was the most productive players on the Blazers despite playing less than 30 minutes per game. Like you said, he didn't do particularly well against the Spurs, but that doesn't invalidate what he accomplished in the regular season and previous three playoff rounds.

It is not about whether there is an aspect in their game you dislike or whether you “feel” like voting for a player. Why is Shaq not a top three offensive player based on what he did this year, and if the answer is “free throw shooting”, how are you assessing that his free throw shooting was preventing him from being a top three offensive player. Why are Shaq and Malone not top five players this year, and how are you assessing Sabonis and Larry Johnson above them in any consistent way that you trust applies to your general approach.

Out of what are now 34 total ballots, you are the first to exclude Shaq, and you are the first to exclude Malone. Additionally, while the sample is much smaller, you are also fully excluding the otherwise unanimous OPoY from your OPoY ballot. The standard for justification needs to be more than “free throw shooting + team turnovers”. And you have quite explicitly not been crafting votes based on how far a player goes in the postseason— again, in this very thread you stated you believe the regular season should matter more — so it is also not a defence that the Blazers made the conference finals (where they had the worst performance across the board against the Spurs of any team, including the Lakers) and that the Knicks made the Finals.

[DCasey91]

Wait hold up...... People argue for DROB overtly

Yet a poster can't hold for their picks just because you don't like their reasoning?

Double standards.... Yet again.

[AEnigma]

Wait hold up...... People argue for DROB overtly

Yet a poster can't hold for their picks just because you don't like their reasoning?

Double standards.... Yet again.

Such a good point, hate those double standards of treating 1999 Robinson as a more legitimate selection than 1999 Sabonis or Larry Johnson.

Stop sulking about how I told you that you need to follow the rules for voter induction.

[One_and_Done]

Wait hold up...... People argue for DROB overtly

Yet a poster can't hold for their picks just because you don't like their reasoning?

Double standards.... Yet again.

Unfortunately it's impossible to police ridiculous votes, because you're just enforcing your own biases. The only solution is for more thought to be given to who votes, and who runs projects & how they run them, before the project begins. Too late to do anything about it now.

[B-Mitch 30]

Why is Shaq not a top three offensive player based on what he did this year, and if the answer is “free throw shooting”, how are you assessing that his free throw shooting was preventing him from being a top three offensive player.

I believe the obvious weakness of being able to foul a player with few repercussions in the last several minutes of a game to get the ball back disqualifies Shaq from being on my list in the light of relatively limited team results.

And you have quite explicitly not been crafting votes based on how far a player goes in the postseason— again, in this very thread you stated you believe the regular season should matter more — so it is also not a defence that the Blazers made the conference finals (where they had the worst performance across the board against the Spurs of any team, including the Lakers) and that the Knicks made the Finals.

I don't think I've been completely excluding postseason results in my voting process, otherwise Adrian Dantley would've showed up on my ballot quite a bit in the 80's. Again, the Blazers played against more teams than just the Spurs, and obviously beat them all in the playoffs. The same with the Knicks, clearly Sabonis and Johnson were doing something right against, empirically, the winningest teams in the league, in addition to their regular season accomplishments (more for Sabonis than Johnson to be fair).

[capfan33]

Why is Shaq not a top three offensive player based on what he did this year, and if the answer is “free throw shooting”, how are you assessing that his free throw shooting was preventing him from being a top three offensive player.

I believe the obvious weakness of being able to foul a player with few repercussions in the last several minutes of a game to get the ball back disqualifies Shaq from being on my list in the light of relatively limited team results.

And you have quite explicitly not been crafting votes based on how far a player goes in the postseason— again, in this very thread you stated you believe the regular season should matter more — so it is also not a defence that the Blazers made the conference finals (where they had the worst performance across the board against the Spurs of any team, including the Lakers) and that the Knicks made the Finals.

I don't think I've been completely excluding postseason results in my voting process, otherwise Adrian Dantley would've showed up on my ballot quite a bit in the 80's. Again, the Blazers played against more teams than just the Spurs, and obviously beat them all in the playoffs. The same with the Knicks, clearly Sabonis and Johnson were doing something right against, empirically, the winningest teams in the league, in addition to their regular season accomplishments (more for Sabonis than Johnson to be fair).

Back then especially with the lower half-court efficiency hack-a-Shaq at most was marginally worse than the average half-court possession. That's not particularly compelling, especially when the Lakers had the 2nd best offense and were talking about prime Shaq.

[AEnigma]

Why is Shaq not a top three offensive player based on what he did this year, and if the answer is “free throw shooting”, how are you assessing that his free throw shooting was preventing him from being a top three offensive player.

I believe the obvious weakness of being able to foul a player with few repercussions in the last several minutes of a game to get the ball back disqualifies Shaq from being on my list in the light of relatively limited team results.

That did not stop you from voting for Shaq in 1994, 1995, and 1997.

And you have quite explicitly not been crafting votes based on how far a player goes in the postseason— again, in this very thread you stated you believe the regular season should matter more — so it is also not a defence that the Blazers made the conference finals (where they had the worst performance across the board against the Spurs of any team, including the Lakers) and that the Knicks made the Finals.

I don't think I've been completely excluding postseason results in my voting process, otherwise Adrian Dantley would've showed up on my ballot quite a bit in the 80's. Again, the Blazers played against more teams than just the Spurs, and obviously beat them all in the playoffs. The same with the Knicks, clearly Sabonis and Johnson were doing something right against, empirically, the winningest teams in the league, in addition to their regular season accomplishments (more for Sabonis than Johnson to be fair).

Well, let us see:

In 1998, you voted Jason Kidd fifth as a first round exit. For the record, I received complaints about your exclusion of Shaq that year too, but I was willing to let it slide because of all Shaq’s missed time…

… not that it, or his free throw shooting, prevented you voting Shaq second in 1997, or attempting to vote for Isaiah Rider fourth as first round exit to a non-conference finalist.

In 1996 you voted Alonzo Mourning fourth as a first round exit.

In 1995 you voted Gary Payton fifth as a first round exit to a non-conference finalist.

In 1994 you voted Robinson second as a first round exit to a non-finalist, and in 1991 you voted him fourth as a first round exit to a non-conference finalist.

In 1993 you voted Derrick Coleman fifth as a first round exit to a non-conference finalist.

In 1989, you voted: Barkley second as a first round exit to a non-conference finalist; Nance third as a first round exit to a non-finalist; and Michael Adams fifth as a first round exit to a non-finalist — all while entirely excluding Magic Johnson from both your RPoY and OPoY ballots. You were informally warned for that ballot.

In 1988, you voted Clyde Drexler third as first round exit to a non-conference finalist, and in 1987, you voted him second as a first round exit.

In 1987, you also voted Barkley third as first round exit to a non-conference finalist.

In 1985, you voted Jordan and Hakeem fourth and fifth as first round exits to non-finalists.

In 1984, you voted Mychal Thompson third as a first round exit to a non-finalist.

In 1983, you voted Buck Williams fifth as a first round exit to a non-conference finalist.

And now suddenly you want to tell me that Shaq and Malone are too limited by their postseason accomplishments to merit a vote? Try again.

[DCasey91]

Wait hold up...... People argue for DROB overtly

Yet a poster can't hold for their picks just because you don't like their reasoning?

Double standards.... Yet again.

Unfortunately it's impossible to police ridiculous votes, because you're just enforcing your own biases. The only solution is for more thought to be given to who votes, and who runs projects & how they run them, before the project begins. Too late to do anything about it now.

He gave his points outlined rightly or wrongly that does not matter at all.

Hence the vote counts

What bias?

I'm being purely objective

All of you aren't working under a 1 to 1 basis

You let stand a literal charachtuir vote by consensus

Once again the voter gave his reasoning as to why

If he faces backlash so be it.

F the diatribe of useless words condemning the vote.

Now a brief investigation into the voter's history? Please we all have inconsistencies and biases to support

I say keep the same energy if not it reeks of hypocrisy which is common place here

[B-Mitch 30]

Responding to Enigma, looking at my rationale for prior votes for Shaq, in 1994 his free throw shooting was much better, in 1995 he made the Finals, and in 1997 the Lakers had a huge defensive turnaround when he joined, with Shaq arguably being at his defensive peak. As for the rest of my votes, I'm not going to pretend I'm not arbitrary at times. Still, if nothing else, I think I try to find players who were clearly by and far the best players on their teams. Sometimes a good postseason run helps convince me, sometimes it doesn't. I think I've defended my votes as best as I can, if you can't accept them that's just how it is, no hard feelings.

[DCasey91]

My man you should not defend your right to vote in regards to legitimacy if you have your reasoning which you did.

Rightly or wrongly
Or if there's inconsistencies (everyone has inconsistencies)

That does not matter.

Cool posters don't like Shaq/Barkley in the votes that's their problem not yours

[AEnigma]

Responding to Enigma, looking at my rationale for prior votes for Shaq, in 1994 his free throw shooting was much better, in 1995 he made the Finals, and in 1997 the Lakers had a huge defensive turnaround when he joined, with Shaq arguably being at his defensive peak. As for the rest of my votes, I'm not going to pretend I'm not arbitrary at times. Still, if nothing else, I think I try to find players who were clearly by and far the best players on their teams. Sometimes a good postseason run helps convince me, sometimes it doesn't. I think I've defended my votes as best as I can, if you can't accept them that's just how it is, no hard feelings.

That is not true for either of your choices here (nor was it true when you took Stockton instead of Malone in 1992).

I probably will accept them — the ballot ultimately affects no results — but this project is not meant to be about arbitrary and whimsical picks based on how a voter “feels” about a player day to day.

[OhayoKD]

Responding to Enigma, looking at my rationale for prior votes for Shaq, in 1994 his free throw shooting was much better, in 1995 he made the Finals, and in 1997 the Lakers had a huge defensive turnaround when he joined, with Shaq arguably being at his defensive peak. As for the rest of my votes, I'm not going to pretend I'm not arbitrary at times. Still, if nothing else, I think I try to find players who were clearly by and far the best players on their teams. Sometimes a good postseason run helps convince me, sometimes it doesn't. I think I've defended my votes as best as I can, if you can't accept them that's just how it is, no hard feelings.

FWIW, i'd be in favor of counting the vote. I imagine under this level of scrutiny alot of ballots would fall apart

[One_and_Done]

My man you should not defend your right to vote in regards to legitimacy if you have your reasoning which you did.

Rightly or wrongly
Or if there's inconsistencies (everyone has inconsistencies)

That does not matter.

Cool posters don't like Shaq/Barkley in the votes that's there problem not yours

I am even handed in criticising all votes I disagree with, as much as I can be bothered anyway.

I'm not questioning his right to vote. Given we have literal mail in votes, I don't see how I can. That's my Baller vow.

[B-Mitch 30]

I probably will accept them — the ballot ultimately affects no results — but this project is not meant to be about arbitrary and whimsical picks based on how a voter “feels” about a player day to day.

Thanks for accepting them Enigma, I will say that I was planning on voting for Johnson as my 5th pick this year well in advance. My decision to vote for Sabonis, and to a lesser extent, Dikembe, was a bit more short term, though I tried to follow my own thought process with prior votes.