Retro POY '92-93 (Voting Complete)

[ItsMillerTime]

Early Rankings

1. Jordan
2. Hakeem
3. Barkley
4. Malone
5. Ewing

HM = Pippen, Robinson, Wilkens

[bastillon]

I don't know how MJ fans are voting for him at number 1. from what I've heard about 93/94 situation, when Bulls were barely better, Bulls fans have always argued that 93 isn't a good way to measure their strength because Jordan had a down year after the olympics and didn't play as well as he could've. now I heard none of that argument and there's a lot of people voting for him over Olajuwon.

the funniest thing ?

Code: Select all

            2nd     3rd     4th     coach
Jordan    Pippen   Grant  BJ Arm     Phil
Hakeem     Horry  Thorpe   Smith     Rudy

Bulls: 57W
Rockets: 55W

if Jordan and Hakeem were close, something doesn't add up, because Pippen obviously >>>>> Horry, Grant's better than Thorpe, Phil's better than Rudy. if Jordan had the same impact, then Bulls should've won A LOT more games than Knicks... they didn't.

honestly, I don't think Jordan played any better than Kobe Bryant that year. his defense was worse, his efficiency went down, his impact clearly wasn't at his normal level. if you have Pippen, Phil and Grant on your team and you're winning 57 games, you're not playing at TOP10 level all-time. I have absolutely no doubt Kobe Bryant would win at the very least 60 games. it's not even that hard to begin with when your supporting cast is that good.

series by series:

Code: Select all

           MPG   PPG   TS%   APG   TOV   RPG   BPG   SPG
vs Atl    35.6  34.3  0.60   4.3   1.3   6.7   1.7   1.7
vs Cavs   37.7  31.0  0.56   5.0   2.3   3.7   0.3   2.3
vs NYK    40.0  32.2  0.52   5.7   2.0   6.3   0.7   2.7
vs Phx    46.7  41.0  0.54   6.7   3.3   9.3   0.7   3.0

his numbers directly correlated with opp defense
Atlanta 110.2 (23rd of 27)
Cleveland 106.0 (6th of 27)
Knicks 99.7 (1st of 27)
Phoenix 106.7 (9th of 27)

when he faced awful defense (vs Atl) or one that couldn't matchup with him at all (Phx), he dominated. when he faced good defense (vs Cle) he played well, but that's not even Kobe-level. when he faced epic defense (vs NYK), he didn't play well at all.

Jordan against the Knicks had one epic game (54 pts), but it was a follow-up to 3-18 game 3, which was one worst MJ-games ever, I remember a lot of bail-out calls in that game (as well as in the whole series, but this shouldn't surprise anyone). aside this one epic game, and another Iversonesque (36 pts, 10-32 FG), MJ didn't reach 30pt mark, having aforementioned 3-18 FG 22-pt game 3, 10-27 27-pt game 1, 8-24 25-pt closeout game. he played great in G5 though (29/14).

so that's 2 good games out of 6. if we punished Robinson for choking for his standards, and if we punished LeBron for the same, we have to punish MJ too. well, I did blame Robinson and LeBron so I'm gonna be hard on Jordan as well.

it was somewhat disappointing season. he had no business being 2nd seed in the playoffs with Pippen, Phil and great 3rd string players in BJ/Grant. he had no business having b2b sub-par series in the playoffs.

41 PPG on 54% TS in the finals is great, as well as his other achievements from this season, but this is MJ we're talking about - expectations are high. Kobe could've scored 41 PPG on those Suns too, I mean if you have combo of Barkley/Oliver Miller protecting your basket, you're not gonna win a lot of games with your defense. I respect the crap out of Jordan and I've generally been defending him on this board, but this is absolute peak Hakeem we're comparing him to. if MJ was at his best here, this would be a very competitive matchup to discuss, but I don't see any reason to put him in the debate when he had played his worst season of his career at the time (excluding '86), perhaps at the level of his rookie season. Kobe doesn't have any business being in the discussion with prime Hakeem, much less with the very best version of him. now I don't see Jordan in this comparison, because he never distinguished himself from Kobe in '93.

[bastillon]

after reading Doc MJ's post on Barkley, I feel strong about putting him above Jordan. his supporting cast wasn't anywhere near MJ's and Suns were still competitive in the finals, contrary to large discrepancy in casts' talent.

also, I think it's ridiculous to put Robinson ahead of Malone now. at the time, it might have seemed alright, but having our advantage of looking back at their playoff matchups, it shouldn't be a close comparison. we've seen Malone facing against Robinson, with both of them guarding each other a lot, and with Malone dominating D-Rob the way Hakeem did. it's not like anything change in their individual skillset between 93 and 94 or 96. Robinson was the same player, and Malone was too. having the advantage over past voters of watching their playoff matchups, I can't vote for Robinson over Malone in any year. it was pretty damn obvious who was a better basketball player at the time.

Ewing is interesting that year. I remember t-sherkin arguing how bad Knicks were that season offensively, with nobody even remotely capable of creating his own shot, let alone being a decent 2nd option. this is true obviously, but they were also 22nd in ORtg so this is reflected in their offensive success, or lack thereof. they won with their defense, possibly best ever. on this end, though, Ewing had a lot of support. their rotational defense was great, Oakley was epic man defender and rebounder/box-out man, they had some other good defenders alongside him as well (but Starks was nowhere near good and is IMO extremely overrated just because nobody could expose him with that team defense; I don't see Starks as much better than Fisher honestly, both are physical defenders but neither can stay in front without help and both are undersized for their position).

still, this team had no business being 60W team with that line-up which goes to Ewing's credit. I'd put him over MJ normally, but since people will go crazy and would burry me, I'm just gonna put him at 4, ahead of Malone.

I wonder though, how's MJ ahead of Ewing when his team was worse in the RS despite having ridiculously stronger cast AND outperformed him in h2h series as well ?

Code: Select all

       MPG   PPG   TS%   APG   TOV   RPG   BPG   SPG
Ewing 41.8  25.8  0.57   2.5   2.3  11.2   1.8   1.7
MJ    40.0  32.2  0.52   5.7   2.0   6.3   0.7   2.7

btw. it's amazing how consistent Ewing was in that series. every game he played more or less the same as far as boxscore numbers. MJ on the other hand had one epic 54-pt game and one great 29/14 game, but played poorly the rest of the series. Ewing didn't have sudden explosions, but easily outplayed him in the rest of those games (which were, after all, 2/3 of all series)...

[mysticbb]

from what I've heard about 93/94 situation, when Bulls were barely better, Bulls fans have always argued that 93 isn't a good way to measure their strength because Jordan had a down year after the olympics and didn't play as well as he could've. now I heard none of that argument and there's a lot of people voting for him over Olajuwon.

Lol, only because Jordan wasn't as good as he was in 1992 that doesn't mean that Olajuwon was better. Your argumentation has a serious flaw.

Also the 1993 Bulls had a 6.2 SRS, the 1994 Bulls a 2.9 SRS. The 93 Bulls were clearly better than the 94 Bulls, don't let the record fool you in that case.

the funniest thing ?

Even more funny, Bulls won the championship in 1993, Houston lost in the 2nd round. Also, the Rockets had a 3.6 SRS. The difference between those two teams was bigger than the difference of the records shows.

Kobe doesn't have any business being in the discussion with prime Hakeem, much less with the very best version of him. now I don't see Jordan in this comparison, because he never distinguished himself from Kobe in '93.

When Bryant finishes a season with a 29.7 PER and the playoffs with a 30.1 PER, please come back to me. Let us not talk about Win Shares in that case either.

Neither Olajuwon nor Barkley (no idea why you bring up Ewing and the series against the Bulls, you actually know what player the Bulls had on C?) played as good as you would have like them. From 1991 to 1993 there shouldn't even be a discussion who was the best player in the league in those seasons, Michael Jordan, and everyone who wants to claim different, might just want to go back and do some video research. Jordan scored 55 in game 4 on the Suns in the finals. And please, don't tell anybody Bryant could have done the same when in reality the guy had exactly ONE 50 pts playoff games in his entire career and his highest points in a finals game was 40.

And it is funny that you want to argue for Barkley while you put so much weight into defense in other cases. :lol:

[ElGee]

I don't know how MJ fans are voting for him at number 1. from what I've heard about 93/94 situation, when Bulls were barely better, Bulls fans have always argued that 93 isn't a good way to measure their strength because Jordan had a down year after the olympics and didn't play as well as he could've. now I heard none of that argument and there's a lot of people voting for him over Olajuwon.

I haven't heard anyone in this project mention that "theory." Jordan's numbers are similar or better in a lot of areas from 1992, so I don't know how that would be a viable theory, unless you're counting a 2% drop in impact as a down year. But if Usain Bolt runs 9.62 in the next Olympics, it doesn't make him slow. Heck, it doesn't even make him 2nd best.

the funniest thing ?

Code: Select all

            2nd     3rd     4th     coach
Jordan    Pippen   Grant  BJ Arm     Phil
Hakeem     Horry  Thorpe   Smith     Rudy

Bulls: 57W
Rockets: 55W

if Jordan and Hakeem were close, something doesn't add up, because Pippen obviously >>>>> Horry, Grant's better than Thorpe, Phil's better than Rudy. if Jordan had the same impact, then Bulls should've won A LOT more games than Knicks... they didn't.

(1) I don't like these team extrapolations, but if you're looking at the team success, the Bulls SRS was 6.2, Houston's was 3.6. These teams weren't really in the same ballpark.

(2) Why do you have Robert Horry listed as "second?"

(3) If you're looking to explain the drop from Chicago's 1992 season (~10 SRS), Scottie Pippen had a down year. Fatigue may have been an issue for Pip (Olympics) and the team (2 straight deep runs). There were minor injuries as well to Cartwright, Paxson, Purdue...

honestly, I don't think Jordan played any better than Kobe Bryant that year. his defense was worse, his efficiency went down, his impact clearly wasn't at his normal level.

How was his defense worse?

if you have Pippen, Phil and Grant on your team and you're winning 57 games, you're not playing at TOP10 level all-time. I have absolutely no doubt Kobe Bryant would win at the very least 60 games. it's not even that hard to begin with when your supporting cast is that good.

series by series:

Code: Select all

           MPG   PPG   TS%   APG   TOV   RPG   BPG   SPG
vs Atl    35.6  34.3  0.60   4.3   1.3   6.7   1.7   1.7
vs Cavs   37.7  31.0  0.56   5.0   2.3   3.7   0.3   2.3
vs NYK    40.0  32.2  0.52   5.7   2.0   6.3   0.7   2.7
vs Phx    46.7  41.0  0.54   6.7   3.3   9.3   0.7   3.0

his numbers directly correlated with opp defense
Atlanta 110.2 (23rd of 27)
Cleveland 106.0 (6th of 27)
Knicks 99.7 (1st of 27)
Phoenix 106.7 (9th of 27)

when he faced awful defense (vs Atl) or one that couldn't matchup with him at all (Phx), he dominated. when he faced good defense (vs Cle) he played well, but that's not even Kobe-level. when he faced epic defense (vs NYK), he didn't play well at all.

I'm not understanding what Kobe Bryant has to do with Michael Jordan in 1993. Also, I'm not following where he didn't play well -- I'm pretty sure the Knicks thought he played well. I don't look at those numbers (nor do i look at the games) and say "wow, Michael Jordan didn't play well against that epic defense," even if they did give him issues in 1993.

Jordan against the Knicks had one epic game (54 pts), but it was a follow-up to 3-18 game 3, which was one worst MJ-games ever, I remember a lot of bail-out calls in that game (as well as in the whole series, but this shouldn't surprise anyone). aside this one epic game, and another Iversonesque (36 pts, 10-32 FG), MJ didn't reach 30pt mark, having aforementioned 3-18 FG 22-pt game 3, 10-27 27-pt game 1, 8-24 25-pt closeout game. he played great in G5 though (29/14).

so that's 2 good games out of 6. if we punished Robinson for choking for his standards, and if we punished LeBron for the same, we have to punish MJ too. well, I did blame Robinson and LeBron so I'm gonna be hard on Jordan as well.

Well, the first two games he didn't shoot particularly well and my recollection was the Knicks defense was successful in limiting him and that played a big part in New York winning. Game 3 turned into a blowout and Michael just couldn't shoot. He did hit 16-17 FT's, had 11 assists and grabbed 8 rebounds. His game 6 was just 8-24, but 25 and 9 assists on 1 turnover. So yeah, that's a fair way to classify it, but he's playing arguably the best defense ever which was constantly doubling him and he finished with 32 on 52% TS and 6 assists with just 2 TO's. None of that includes the defense he played in the series.

I'm not seeing how this is a "bad" series, unless we're just so ridiculously spoiled by Jordan that any sign of humanity dictates extreme criticism.

it was somewhat disappointing season. he had no business being 2nd seed in the playoffs with Pippen, Phil and great 3rd string players in BJ/Grant. he had no business having b2b sub-par series in the playoffs.

41 PPG on 54% TS in the finals is great, as well as his other achievements from this season, but this is MJ we're talking about - expectations are high. Kobe could've scored 41 PPG on those Suns too, I mean if you have combo of Barkley/Oliver Miller protecting your basket, you're not gonna win a lot of games with your defense. I respect the crap out of Jordan and I've generally been defending him on this board, but this is absolute peak Hakeem we're comparing him to. if MJ was at his best here, this would be a very competitive matchup to discuss, but I don't see any reason to put him in the debate when he had played his worst season of his career at the time (excluding '86), perhaps at the level of his rookie season. Kobe doesn't have any business being in the discussion with prime Hakeem, much less with the very best version of him. now I don't see Jordan in this comparison, because he never distinguished himself from Kobe in '93.

I'm not sure who had b2b sub-par series? Jordan??

The Suns had the ninth ranked defense - Majerle and Dumas (perimeter defenders) were part of that units strength. Oliver Miller was 4th in the NBA in blocks/36. Mark West was 17th.

[Gongxi]

Uh oh. Are we comparing players to themselves again?

[sp6r=underrated]

Probably anchoring that 90s Knicks defense at PEAK form, I'd love to here a little bit more about him (sp6r?), his production in the playoffs didn't even take a dip.

I don't have a lot of time to make a detailed post on Ewing's defense, but I do have a old lengthy post on the Knicks defense, that might give some of the analysis you are looking for. It came out of a comparison with 2nd three peat bulls, so that is why I'm making a comparison between the two.

The New York Knicks, under Pat Riley, were easily, the best defensive team of the 90s. TMACFORMVP already ran the numbers:

91-92: Second in opponents points, fifth in opponents FG%
92-93: First in opponents points, first in opponents FG% (Knicks held opponents to .421 FG%, and the next closest team were the Bulls who held their opponents to an average .450 FG%. That's dominance defensively overall ALL their peers)
93-94: First in opponents points, first in opponents FG%
94-95: Second in opponents points, first in opponents FG% (including another 2% lead over 2nd place team)

A way of proving how great the Knicks were on defense is by looking at they defended at worst the second greatest playoff performer of all time, Michael Jordan.

A myth has grown that prime Jordan destroyed the Knicks in the playoffs the way he did Phoenix and other teams. This is inaccurate.

The NY Knicks, under Riley, were the only team during Jordan’s prime that were able to affect his production during the post-season.

MJ’s suffered decreases in most statistical areas against the Knicks in the playoffs during his prime.

MJ’s production from (91/92-92/93)

Code: Select all

                        Ppg   rpg    apg   spg   bpg   topg   fg%    efg  ts%
Regular Season:         32.49, 6.54, 6.14, 2.64, 1.03, 2.62, 0.529, 0.537, 0.592
Post Season (minus NY): 36.18, 6.71, 6.04, 2.07, 0.68, 3.07, 0.508, 0.529, 0.577
Post Season (NY alone): 29.91, 5.59, 5.22, 1.81, 1.02, 2.91, 0.441, 0.459, 0.531

MJ’s, per 40 minutes, production from (91/92-92/93)

Code: Select all

                        Ppg   rpg    apg   spg   bpg   topg   fg%    efg  ts%
Regular Season:         34.31, 6.90, 6.48, 2.79, 1.09, 2.77, 0.529, 0.537, 0.592
Post Season (minus NY): 35.18, 6.52, 5.87, 2.01, 0.66, 2.98, 0.508, 0.529, 0.577
Post Season (NY alone): 28.23, 5.27, 4.93, 1.71, 0.96, 2.74, 0.441, 0.459, 0.531


The Knicks were also the most successful team against Chicago. Riley led Knicks met the Chicago Bulls (w/Jordan) 13 times in the playoffs. The Bulls went 8-5, vs everyone else they went 22-6 during that span. This is despite having only an average offense. All their success came from their defense.


The Chicago Bulls do not approach the level of statistical dominance that NY had. The Bulls were a better team than the Knicks because they had a historic offense, but defense alone the Knicks were clearly the better team.

The 93 Knicks were a better defensive team than the 96 Bulls for a few reasons.

First, it begins with the coaching. On the defensive end, coaching can have a significant impact on the team’s success. In the NBA, with the exception of the ability to relate to the players, this is the area were a coach can have the greatest impact.

My opinion of Jackson has really shifted based on his second stint with the Lakers, and I know consider him the best coach I’ve seen.

A lot of people sell Phil Jackson short on these boards and say he has only won because of the talent he has on the roster. Jackson for the vast majority of his career, has had a talent advantage over the rest of the league.

But, what his critics miss is that Jackson, rarely if ever loses to an inferior squad in the playoffs. Only in 2003 and 2004 can you argue that he lost to a squad with inferior talent, and there are many experts who will tell you the Spurs and Pistons were the superior squad on talent alone. Jackson’s greatness as a coach is based on his ability in two areas. Coach Jackson most importantly has the ability to relate too understand his player’s needs and get to sacrifice for the greater good. Second Coach Jackson is the master of offensive spacing, which has allowed his superior offensive players, to have the room to dominate the game.

Focusing strictly on defense, Riley though is still a better coach. He devotes, from what I have read, significant more amounts of practice to defensive strategy. In LA, during the late 80s the Lakers still managed to rank in the top 1/3 of the league defensively despite having a roster that was full of questionable defenders. Magic was a poor man defender, while Kareem’s lateral movement was severely limited by this point. Worthy and Scott were players who were more offensive inclined. Save Cooper, Thompson and for some experts (though not me) AC Green, the lakers were devoid of elite level defenders. Yet they still managed to be fairly good on this end because of their Coach.

Riley is the master of using defensive strategy to cover up his weakest defenders and of using strategy to destroy the other team’s offensive spacing. For the rest of his career, post LA, Riley has shown a greater emphasis on defensive skill in deciding which players to bring into the team, and for playing time. So, the Knicks have a better defensive coach in my mind.

Second, the Knicks rotation in 93 was devoid of weak defenders. The Bulls in 96 ran a 9 man rotation in the regular season, which became a seven man rotation in the post-season. Two of the players who logged heavy minutes were Kukoc and Kerr, both of whom are extremely weak man defenders. The strength of the bulls other defenders allowed them to cover up for their weaknesses with effective help defense. Their inability though to play man defense, would in the course of a game result in 1-2 blown plays.

This obviously isn’t a big thing considering what they brought to the team on the offensive end. I generally rank the 96 bulls as the second greatest team of all time only below the 67 76ers all-time in large based partly on what they brought to a team. Kukoc on the offensive end, make no bones about it, was an elite level play-maker. At least top 20 in the league on that point. Kerr, made defending the bulls nearly impossible, because his range added greater degrees of spacing on the court and you couldn’t leave him open since he never missed open shots. But when your talking strictly defense these flaws matter and hold the 96 Bulls back in comparison to the 93 Knicks.

Almost every major rotation player on the 93 Knicks was an elite level defender. Out of their major players, Smith was probably the weakest defender but he was still above average those years and was world’s apart from Kukoc. Only Blackman could your argue was a weak defender, and he was rarely on the court for big minutes. At the point Rivers was as least as good as Harper defensively. When they faced a speedster they could bring in Anthony who could play brilliant man defense for 20 minutes a night.

The Knicks held a major defensive advantage at Center whose importance will be elaborated further on, and at the 4 93 Oakley was a better defender than Rodman. Rodman by this point did have a tendency to cheat off his man for rebounds, Oakley a great rebounder though not on the Worm’s level as a rebounder didn’t and that is what makes him a better defender. Only at 3 do the Bulls have a major defensive advantage. Jordan was obviously a much better help defender than Starks, but partly because of the burden he had on offense and partly because he was now 32, Jordan could not expend nearly as much energy on defense as Starks. Starks due to his youth and significantly lesser role on offense was free to go all out on man defense. The Bulls still had a defensive advantage at this position but it is not as much as people imagine. So overall the Knicks had superior defensive personal.

Third, the lack of an elite level shot blocker really hurts the Bulls in this comparison. Longley is a player I hold in pretty high regard in comparison to his reputation. He was a very underrated passer who moved well without the ball for a man of his size. He was very strong as a post defender, because his build made him very difficult to back down. But still, he was not a very good shot blocker for his position.

Jordan, while still the best player in the league and who still played at the level of a top 3 player of all time, had fallen off in this one category. The drop in athleticism he had suffered prevented him from being able to block shots at a high rate as he once did. So when the Bulls did have a blown play, there was no one there to reliably count on to the block shot. Nor were teams significantly deterred from attacking the lane on Chicago.

NY by contrast was different. Ewing who was always a dominant shot blocker, was a very intimidating player who could cover up for mistakes on the court. Smith by this point was a very underrated shot-blocker. So the Knicks were able to cover up for mistakes and deter lane penetration at a greater rate than Chicago.

The major advantage I see Chicago holding is that they were better at playing the passing lanes than NY, and had greater ability to trap and apply pressure along the court. As Jackson would say, he could release the Dobermans. The advantage at playing the passing lanes is real and Chicago does hold the advantage there.

But overall I prefer the 93 Knicks by a clear margin on defense

[lorak]

1 Jordan
2. Hakeem
3. Barkley
4. Robinson
5. Ewing

[bastillon]

Lol, only because Jordan wasn't as good as he was in 1992 that doesn't mean that Olajuwon was better. Your argumentation has a serious flaw.

Also the 1993 Bulls had a 6.2 SRS, the 1994 Bulls a 2.9 SRS. The 93 Bulls were clearly better than the 94 Bulls, don't let the record fool you in that case.

I don't see how SRS has any relevance here. we're not judging which team was better, but how the record impacted their playoff seeding, that has nothing to do with SRS as wins determine that. in terms of winning a championship, in terms of helping your team achieve that feat, wins matter more. in that sense, Hakeem had superior RS, far superior, having far worse 2nd best player and coaching, he actually did more or less the same during the season. voters probably felt the same way, if Jordan, despite his reputation that amassed tons of votes in every award voting (joke DPOY finish at 2nd), ended up being 3rd in RS.

as far as Bulls 93/94 comparison, this argument has some value, but still it doesn't justify MJ at all. 3 SRS difference for a GOAT ? c'mon, man.

And it is funny that you want to argue for Barkley while you put so much weight into defense in other cases.

I like Doc MJ's points. Barkley made them significantly better overall as a team, so despite his defensive shortcomings, he impacted Suns in a great way. also, despite having ridiculously weaker supp cast, Suns played at similar level both in RS (actually better here) and playoffs.

I haven't heard anyone in this project mention that "theory." Jordan's numbers are similar or better in a lot of areas from 1992, so I don't know how that would be a viable theory, unless you're counting a 2% drop in impact as a down year. But if Usain Bolt runs 9.62 in the next Olympics, it doesn't make him slow. Heck, it doesn't even make him 2nd best.

well, you obviously haven't heard that... that was kind of the point. Bulls fans, trying to explain the small drop-off between 93 and 94, have argued in multiple threads on this board that MJ had a down year after the olympics (easily seen in numbers across the board and Bulls record). now that he's being compared to other players in the league, no mention of that. double standard anyone ?

Well, the first two games he didn't shoot particularly well and my recollection was the Knicks defense was successful in limiting him and that played a big part in New York winning. Game 3 turned into a blowout and Michael just couldn't shoot. He did hit 16-17 FT's, had 11 assists and grabbed 8 rebounds. His game 6 was just 8-24, but 25 and 9 assists on 1 turnover. So yeah, that's a fair way to classify it, but he's playing arguably the best defense ever which was constantly doubling him and he finished with 32 on 52% TS and 6 assists with just 2 TO's. None of that includes the defense he played in the series.

I'm not seeing how this is a "bad" series, unless we're just so ridiculously spoiled by Jordan that any sign of humanity dictates extreme criticism.

yeah, but it gets worse if we look at it game-by-game. Jordan had 2 great games and 4 poor ones. re-read my previous post.

anyway, I'm not gonna post in this thread again (probably), but Jordan had a GREAT supporting cast and only managed to get 57 wins. in my book that's damning. now in the playoffs, he never dominated like his old-self either. Hakeem and Barkley both had much weaker teams (while pushing their teams to similar level) and played their best years as pros.

1.Hakeem
2.Barkley
3.Jordan
4.Ewing
5.Malone

the only reason why Ewing (weaker cast, more wins in RS; outperformed him h2h) is behind MJ is hate I would get if I ranked him lower.

bottomline is that if Pippen changed teams with Horry/Majerle, Bulls have no shot at beating Rockets/Suns. I'm not gonna give MJ credit for having superior management and supporting cast.

[Gongxi]

Why would Pippen switch with Majerle and not KJ?

Anyway, that's just a horrible justification, all around. Hopefully you bring your A game to the 91-92 season.

[bastillon]

Why would Pippen switch with Majerle and not KJ?

Anyway, that's just a horrible justification, all around. Hopefully you bring your A game to the 91-92 season.

because then SC would be somewhat close and I wanted to make this unfair, contrary to what it was in reality (unfair for Barkley/Keem).

KJ/Grant/Phil + good role players is close to Pippen/Majerle + role players.

now that's my last post.

[JordansBulls]

Lol, only because Jordan wasn't as good as he was in 1992 that doesn't mean that Olajuwon was better. Your argumentation has a serious flaw.

Also the 1993 Bulls had a 6.2 SRS, the 1994 Bulls a 2.9 SRS. The 93 Bulls were clearly better than the 94 Bulls, don't let the record fool you in that case.

I don't see how SRS has any relevance here. we're not judging which team was better, but how the record impacted their playoff seeding, that has nothing to do with SRS as wins determine that. in terms of winning a championship, in terms of helping your team achieve that feat, wins matter more. in that sense, Hakeem had superior RS, far superior, having far worse 2nd best player and coaching, he actually did more or less the same during the season. voters probably felt the same way, if Jordan, despite his reputation that amassed tons of votes in every award voting (joke DPOY finish at 2nd), ended up being 3rd in RS.

as far as Bulls 93/94 comparison, this argument has some value, but still it doesn't justify MJ at all. 3 SRS difference for a GOAT ? c'mon, man.

And it is funny that you want to argue for Barkley while you put so much weight into defense in other cases.

I like Doc MJ's points. Barkley made them significantly better overall as a team, so despite his defensive shortcomings, he impacted Suns in a great way. also, despite having ridiculously weaker supp cast, Suns played at similar level both in RS (actually better here) and playoffs.

I haven't heard anyone in this project mention that "theory." Jordan's numbers are similar or better in a lot of areas from 1992, so I don't know how that would be a viable theory, unless you're counting a 2% drop in impact as a down year. But if Usain Bolt runs 9.62 in the next Olympics, it doesn't make him slow. Heck, it doesn't even make him 2nd best.

well, you obviously haven't heard that... that was kind of the point. Bulls fans, trying to explain the small drop-off between 93 and 94, have argued in multiple threads on this board that MJ had a down year after the olympics (easily seen in numbers across the board and Bulls record). now that he's being compared to other players in the league, no mention of that. double standard anyone ?

Well, the first two games he didn't shoot particularly well and my recollection was the Knicks defense was successful in limiting him and that played a big part in New York winning. Game 3 turned into a blowout and Michael just couldn't shoot. He did hit 16-17 FT's, had 11 assists and grabbed 8 rebounds. His game 6 was just 8-24, but 25 and 9 assists on 1 turnover. So yeah, that's a fair way to classify it, but he's playing arguably the best defense ever which was constantly doubling him and he finished with 32 on 52% TS and 6 assists with just 2 TO's. None of that includes the defense he played in the series.

I'm not seeing how this is a "bad" series, unless we're just so ridiculously spoiled by Jordan that any sign of humanity dictates extreme criticism.

yeah, but it gets worse if we look at it game-by-game. Jordan had 2 great games and 4 poor ones. re-read my previous post.

anyway, I'm not gonna post in this thread again (probably), but Jordan had a GREAT supporting cast and only managed to get 57 wins. in my book that's damning. now in the playoffs, he never dominated like his old-self either. Hakeem and Barkley both had much weaker teams (while pushing their teams to similar level) and played their best years as pros.

1.Hakeem
2.Barkley
3.Jordan
4.Ewing
5.Malone

the only reason why Ewing (weaker cast, more wins in RS; outperformed him h2h) is behind MJ is hate I would get if I ranked him lower.

bottomline is that if Pippen changed teams with Horry/Majerle, Bulls have no shot at beating Rockets/Suns. I'm not gonna give MJ credit for having superior management and supporting cast.

This is a funny post. Hakeem lost with the same record as the Sonics and Barkley lost with the best record in the league. Hakeem in 1995 got Drexler (a guy who was a star in the league). But yet you voted Hakeem #1 that year despite not having the best numbers in either the season or playoffs and despite the Rockets dismal regular season.

Jordan Led in Win Shares on the season and WS per 48 minutes, Led in Season PER. Led the league in scoring in the season and playoffs. Led in Win Shares per 48 minutes in the playoffs, Was 1st in Playoff PER, Set the Finals Scoring average and also beat two teams that won 60+ games without HCA.

If you put Hakeem #1 in 1995 who did not even have the best numbers in the season nor playoffs, but Jordan in 1993 had the best numbers and production in both the season and playoffs, then that should even be more obvious in 1993 that MJ was #1.

[TrueLAfan]

1. MJ. Best Finals I have seen a player have. The regular season didn’t exactly suck either.
2. Barkley. Close between he and Jordan (and Hakeem). I think Barkley had more impact on the Suns…but I think some of that is just familiarity with the bulls greatness. But Charles was still great; he transformed the team
3. Hakeem. Beginning of his great period. Had a curious series against Seattle in the postseason, especially in Games 2-6. The Sonics were always a problem for Hakeem and the Rockets. Don’t know why. Was better than Ewing overall.
4. Ewing. Was better than his numbers showed. Showed up in the postseason. Terrific post by sp6r=underrated. A solid #4 choice for me.
5. Robinson. I have serious misgiving about putting Drob here and am waiting to be convinced he should be dropped. Good numbers. Not a leader. Had a good team that underperformed. But Nique missed 11 games; I have them about even, so that gives Drob a slight push. Not thrilled about this at all.

HM: Nique, Malone

[Gongxi]

Well JB, bastillon is what we call an Hakeem lover. He's going to fit the evidence into his worldview, as opposed to the other way around. It's just one vote, and he's entitled to it. We can (and should) laugh at him about it, but there's no real use in trying to get him to justify it, especially when he's already told us he won't. Just laugh and move on.

[JordansBulls]

Well JB, bastillon is what we call an Hakeem lover. He's going to fit the evidence into his worldview, as opposed to the other way around. It's just one vote, and he's entitled to it. We can (and should) laugh at him about it, but there's no real use in trying to get him to justify it, especially when he's already told us he won't. Just laugh and move on.

Yeah, he would probably put Hakeem 1993 over Kareem 1971 as well saying Kareem had Oscar or something like that.

I'm curious on where he ranks Hakeem in 1992 considering the Rockets didnt make the playoffs and also that Thorpe made the all time team that year.

[shawngoat23]

I don't know how MJ fans are voting for him at number 1.

I can accept "MJ may not be the unanimous #1 in '92-93". I can even accept "I have another player above MJ, although I understand I have a very fringe opinion." But you "don't know how" someone who played 78 games, won the championship, won the Finals MVP, made 1st-team All-NBA and All-Defense, and led the league in PPG, SPG, PER, WS, WS/48, playoff PER, playoff WS/48, and playoff WS/g--and above all, has earned the benefit of the doubt for being able to improve his game when it mattered, as he did so in decisive fashion this year--deserves to be at #1?

Just because another player was able to lead a less talented looking team to slightly fewer wins (much lower SRS) and 2nd round elimination? Reality check.

[JordansBulls]

Also in 2000 the Lakers went 67-15. In 2001 they went 56-26 yet Shaq was voted #1 in both 2000 and 2001.

In 1994 the Rockets went 58-24 and in 1995 they went 47-35 despite getting a star in the middle of the season and yet Hakeem was voted #1 in both years.

In 1992 the Bulls went 67-15 and in 1993 the Bulls went 57-25.

Yet in all 3 cases the guy in the year before won more regular season games and the title and the next year won less regular season games, but still the title.

[mysticbb]

I don't see how SRS has any relevance here.

You said that the Bulls 93 were barely better than the Bulls 94. The SRS shows that this wasn't the case.

in terms of winning a championship, in terms of helping your team achieve that feat, wins matter more. in that sense, Hakeem had superior RS, far superior,

Actually the Bulls won the championship, had the better record, THE BULLS ACHIEVED MORE!

if Jordan, despite his reputation that amassed tons of votes in every award voting (joke DPOY finish at 2nd), ended up being 3rd in RS.

:lol:

3 SRS difference for a GOAT ? c'mon, man.

It is actually 3.3, but whatever. The Bulls 93 lost 3 of their 4 games without Jordan too, but who really cares.

I like Doc MJ's points. Barkley made them significantly better overall as a team, so despite his defensive shortcomings, he impacted Suns in a great way. also, despite having ridiculously weaker supp cast, Suns played at similar level both in RS (actually better here) and playoffs.

It is the 2nd time you mentioned a weaker supporting cast. Now let us see how they performed:

Code: Select all

Support  Pts   Reb  Ast  Stl  Blk  ts% to-r  PER  WS  WS/48
Bulls    94.2 47.2 26.4  8.7  5.4 52.4 10.6 14.3 41.2 0.118
Suns    104.8 38.8 24.3  9.0  5.4 55.9 11.6 14.9 42.7 0.121
Rockets  98.2 37.6 28.0  8.2  3.1 55.0 11.5 13.6 37.6 0.109
Knicks   95.6 42.5 29.6  9.1  3.2 52.0 11.0 13.3 47.7 0.135


All numbers are adjusted for minutes and pace. Well, the Rockets had indeed a weaker supporting cast, if we ignore the higher scoring on a higher scoring efficiency in comparison to the Bulls. If you put a lot of emphasize on PER and ignoring everything else the Knicks support also was weaker, BUT there is NO way you can argue that Barkley had the weaker support. They score a lot of more points on a higher efficiency. Higher Win Shares value, higher PER. Saying that Barkley had a "ridiculously weaker support" is just plain stupid.

1.Hakeem
2.Barkley
3.Jordan
4.Ewing
5.Malone

the only reason why Ewing (weaker cast, more wins in RS; outperformed him h2h) is behind MJ is hate I would get if I ranked him lower.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... i?id=rpZmt

Comparison between those 4 players. Jordan is better than all 4 in PER, WS and WS/48 in both regular season and playoffs. Now you can argue that those stats are in favour of the offensive player, but that argument works ONLY for Olajuwon. I don't see how Barkley's "defense" can put him ahead of Jordan.

Olajuwon lost in the 2nd round, I don't see the point of giving him credit for something he didn't achieve that season. I also don't think that his defense overcame Jordan's advantage on offense.

And your argument for Ewing is laughable. Ewing outplayed Cartright, Williams, King and Perdue, but hardly Jordan. Alone the idea comparing the performance of a C and a SG in a h2h matchup is complete insane. And afterall Jordan's Bulls beat the Knicks without HCA, because Jordan played fantastic in the two most crucial games in that series:

Game 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAxrf8xIGUg

Making sure, that the Knicks are not going with a 3-1 lead back to NY with a 54 pts performance.

Game 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wJ3HusQz6o

Posting a triple double (29/10/14) on the road while outrebounding the C Patrick Ewing and making crucial plays like steals and blocked shots.

I'm not gonna give MJ credit for having superior management and supporting cast.

Which wasn't the case for Barkley and Ewing, while Olajuwon didn't even get past the Sonics.

[sp6r=underrated]

]

if Jordan, despite his reputation that amassed tons of votes in every award voting (joke DPOY finish at 2nd), ended up being 3rd in RS.

I'm in almost total agreement with you, but it is a joke that MJ got nine first place votes that year over Hakeem, and crushed Ewing in DPOY votying. His well deserved reputation as already maybe the GOAT, got him extra votes for DPOY.

[mysticbb]

I'm in almost total agreement with you, but it is a joke that MJ got nine first place votes that year over Hakeem, and crushed Ewing in DPOY votying. His well deserved reputation as already maybe the GOAT, got him extra votes for DPOY.

Uh, don't get me wrong on this, I agree with you. But using the MVP voting to support his position while saying the DPOY was just about reputation is just to funny. Jordan didn't get the MVP that season besides the fact he was the most deserving candidate, because the voters were just bored and liked the story around Barkley and the Suns more. Barkley should have finished 3rd behind Jordan and Olajuwon.