Retro POY '83-84 (Voting Complete)

[CellarDoor]

^That's correct, drza.

I can't justify all of them over Kareem, and I can't separate them (more King and Dantley than English), so they're all in HM.

[sp6r=underrated]

^That's correct, drza.

I can't justify all of them over Kareem, and I can't separate them (more King and Dantley than English), so they're all in HM.

Thanks for the response, I knew King and Dantley were there, I was curious who the third was. The time period were in has a lot of SF, so I wasn't sure.

[CellarDoor]

Sorry, should've been more clear.

[ronnymac2]

Check out Alex English's playoff numbers: 29/8/5.6 on 58% fg. Less than two turnovers per game. PER of 25.7. Awesome.

Not feeling Ruland. Not strong enough in this field. Especially against the players I am most likely putting in.

Julius and Moses are weird. I really don't know how they lost in the first round. What is worse is that both of them weren't dominant individually either. I mean, Moses was very good. Julius was just all right. I was really going to put Julius in there. Now I likely won't.

Jabbar has a spot. He had a very good all-around season. Season and playoffs. Should have done better on the boards though. Can't dominate on offense like 1980 KAJ. He's below Magic, who easily has the second spot.

I'll take the small forwards over Moncrief.

So Bird/Magic/KAJ are top three. Ruland, Moncrief, and Julius are out. I have the three small forwards, Isiah, and Moses.

English and Dantley are close. I'll take King this season over either.

I'm putting Isiah in somewhere. Too damn good. No black marks on his game or on his season at all really.

Moses vs. King. Not comfortable with it, but I'll go with King.

I'll take Isiah over Bernard King. Which is odd I guess, because I think Isiah's teammates were better than Bernard's, yet NY won the series. Maybe I underrated the Knicks players. They had to be doing something while King was scoring. Like being the number one defense in the league.....which Isiah put up great numbers against. I don't fault Isiah for Detroit's loss.

Final Rankings:

Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Isiah Thomas
Bernard King


Honorable Mention: Moses Malone, Adrian Dantley, Alex English, Julius Erving, Sidney Moncrief.

[JordansBulls]

How in the world could the Lakers have two of the top 3 players in the league and only won 54 games?

[ronnymac2]

Yeah, that's weird, right?

[semi-sentient]

Yeah, that's weird, right?

I enjoyed your response at the end of the '84-85 thread as well.

[ronnymac2]

I mean, what does JB want? He knows the response to that question. He has to know by now. He has to know. Is he just asking as a formality or something?

[sp6r=underrated]

It is very rare that I type these words. I agree with JB 100%. His point is correct that it is bizarre for two lakers to be top 3 considering the season LA had.

1984 was a very mediocre year for elite teams. The lakers with two of the top three players in the NBA only won 54 games, and had a point differential worse than the Knicks (who also forced the Celtics to a game 7).

Who cares if they made the finals considering the crap they played (38 win Kings, 41 win Suns, 43 win Mavs). They got to play the equivalent of three eight seeds in a row.

[sp6r=underrated]

Interesting article on the beginning of the season for the lakers

NYTIMES: Riley, Under Fire, Defends Nixon Trade

The Los Angeles Lakers have been ''under the microscope'' since they traded the popular point guard Norm Nixon to the San Diego Clippers, their Pacific Division rivals, says Coach Pat Riley. ''And unjustly so,'' he adds.

''People out here are saying either that Magic Johnson's handling the ball too much, or that the chemistry's gone,'' Riley said last week. ''But we had to be realistic. We knew we needed a big man to help Kareem, and that if something happened to him, we'd be left with a very small team. We tried to give up other things. We tried to make deals with draft picks or cash or other players, but they knew we needed help. Everyone did. So they held out.''


The Clippers parted with the center Swen Nater, who played in only 28 games the last two years because of bad knees, and the rookie guard Byron Scott, a first-round draft choice from Arizona, whom they had been unable to sign. Riley said the Lakers had demanded Scott before agreeing to part with Nixon, an all- star guard who was their best long- range shooter. ''There's no way it was going to be a Swen Nater-for-Norm Nixon trade,'' he said. ''That's not being derogatory toward Swen, but be realistic.''

Thus far, Riley says, Scott has not been accepted by Laker followers. Nixon has played well for the Clippers, and Scott, who missed most of training camp because of lengthy contract negotiations, has played sparingly.

''People are being unrealistic when they try to compare them immediately,'' Riley says. ''Norm will have more of an impact because they needed help now, badly. With Byron, it's going to take time. But we don't think we made a mistake. He's a prototype offguard, but we have to be patient.''

Meanwhile, the Lakers seem to have accomplished their goal of becoming stronger defensively and in rebounding, a category in which they were weak last season. They are now among the league leaders in rebounding percentage, which is figured on the number of rebounds gained compared to the number of chances, or missed shots. According to league statistics, the Lakers are No. 1 off the offensive boards. Over all, they are fourth.

Defensively, Riley said, the addition of Nater has tightened the lane, an area that Philadelphia exploited repeatedly during its 4-0 sweep of the Lakers in the final last season. ''We've improved a lot,'' he added. ''And I think we'll be there in the end.''

The Utah Jazz's plans to play 11 of their 42 regular-season home games in the new 18,000-seat Thomas and Mack Center in Las Vegas, Nev., almost had to be changed as the result of a disagreement just before the season between the National Basketball Association and the Nevada Gaming Commission.

When the team announced the plans last summer, the league said it would give approval only if all the team's 82 games were stricken from the gambling boards of the casinos. There was little resistance until members of the Jazz sales staff met a cold shoulder when they tried to convince the hotels to sponsor some of the games with advertising.

It seemed that the hotels wanted to have all the games, including the 11 to be played in the city, on the boards, otherwise they would not support the team. A meeting between a commission representative and Gary Bettman, a league lawyer, settled the issue. It was agreed to have only the 11 games taken off the boards.

It is fitting that the Jazz ''home'' opener in Las Vegas is Nov. 23 against the Chicago Bulls. The Bulls have Sidney Green, a rookie out of Nevada-Las Vegas, and Reggie Theus, who is popular among followers of Coach Jerry Tarkanian's Runnin' Rebels.

Green is among four rookies on the team. Only three other teams - Cleveland, Washington and Indiana - have more. So much youthful talent often reflects a team's poor past, and that is the case with the Bulls, who were 28-54 last season. 19th among the league's 23 teams.

The other rookies are Wallace Bryant, a seldom-used center who spent last season playing in Italy; the starting point-guard Ennis Whatley of Alabama, and a surprising Mitchell Wiggins from Florida State.

This crop might be the most talented among the rookies in the league. And Wiggins, obtained in a trade on draft day with the Indiana Pacers, may be the best of them. ''He' hasn't been a surpise to us,'' said Mike Thibault, a Bull scout. ''We thought he'd be able to come in and help right away.''

That Wiggin, Whatley and Green, who is now a reserve, have taken playing time from the veterans has caused no friction, according to Thibault. ''I think they realize,'' he said, ''that these kids are going to help us win. And that the more they play, the better for all of us.''

[JordansBulls]

It is very rare that I type these words. I agree with JB 100%. His point is correct that it is bizarre for two lakers to be top 3 considering the season LA had.

1984 was a very mediocre year for elite teams. The lakers with two of the top three players in the NBA only won 54 games, and had a point differential worse than the Knicks (who also forced the Celtics to a game 7).

Who cares if they made the finals considering the crap they played (38 win Kings, 41 win Suns, 43 win Mavs). They got to play the equivalent of three eight seeds in a row.

[Doctor MJ]

My vote:

1. Bird
2. King
3. Magic
4. Kareem
5. Moncrief

Bird's the clear #1. Someone asked how things would be different if the Lakers had managed to win the final. For me, wouldn't change anything. Bird was clearly the best player the whole season through.

King's the clear #2. Honestly shaking my head the way he's getting left off some people's ballots. Feels like people are new to really evaluating players in history with the way people can't seem to believe that King might have been much better than Dantley.

I'd say people need to really understand that just because two guys look similar superficially (SF's who score), doesn't mean that they are really that similar. There's much more to the game than can be seen with the box score, and contemporaries make very clear that Dantley was a ballstopper, with bad defense, a tendency to take off plays, and general poor intangibles. Fine to understand these beliefs, do research, and disagree, but you need to go through that process. Meanwhile we've got King putting up huge numbers on a bad team, with contemporaries giving him tons of respect BEFORE his team overachieves in the playoffs with an individual performance that clearly surpasses his highly esteemed regular season.

Magic & Kareem get the next two spots, somewhat reluctantly. This was a Laker team that seems like they should have done more. Still, 2nd best record and a close loss in the finals is nothing to sneeze at.

The Squid slides in to the fifth spot. No playoff disappointment this year.

Honorable Mention

Isiah - Could've been top 5
Ruland - A fascinating case, not quite sold enough to put him higher
Dantley - I've said bad about him, but as I indicated, I don't dismiss him entirely. Contemporaries saw him as top 10 - bad compared to what his stats say, but still very good.
Moses & Julius - Sliding down toward obscurity at this point.

[Doctor MJ]

Last call

[Jordan23Forever]

I only knew of Jeff Ruland as an enforcer in his later years. Had no idea he was a (very) good player until TrueLA's post on page 1. Thanks for the informative post, TrueLAFan. Looks like Ruland did have a great season/postseason, and a few other good seasons as well.

[Doctor MJ]

'83-84 Results

Code: Select all

Player               1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pts   POY Shares
1. Larry Bird         19   0   0   0   0 190   1.000
2. Magic Johnson       0  10   9   0   0 115   0.605
3. Bernard King        0   9   3   2   2  86   0.453
4. Sidney Moncrief     0   0   3   5   5  35   0.184
5. Isiah Thomas        0   0   1   4   4  21   0.111
6. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 0   0   1   3   4  18   0.095
7. Adrian Dantley      0   0   1   3   2  16   0.084
8. Moses Malone        0   0   1   1   0   8   0.042
9. Jeff Ruland         0   0   0   1   1   4   0.021
10. Julius Erving      0   0   0   0   1   1   0.005


[shawngoat23]

TLAF, that's an interesting take on Dantley, and those criticisms are some that I've heard before but never as pointedly.

Who would you compare him to today? Carmelo Anthony? A rich man's Corey Maggette?

[TrueLAfan]

TLAF, that's an interesting take on Dantley, and those criticisms are some that I've heard before but never as pointedly.

Who would you compare him to today? Carmelo Anthony? A rich man's Corey Maggette?

He's certainly not at the level of Carmelo. Corey is an interesting thought...I'm a Clipper fan, so I know (very well) the limitations of Corey Maggette. They are alike in the fact that they get to the line a ton. In a lot of ways, believe it or not, Maggette is superior to Dantley; Corey has some range (or did, at one time). And Corey plays passable D and rebounds well. But Dantley could score like few other people in history, and scoring is often underrated. That alone puts Dantley above Maggette. But we're in the same ballpark in terms of player quality. “Rich Man's Maggette” is close to the mark...and AD is not that much more valuable.

When Dantley was at Detroit, he let the Pistons know (in no uncertain terms) what a stiff he thought Laimbeer was, how Isiah was a deficient PG, and how Daly ran the team poorly. The funny thing is, Laimbeer had one of the perimeter games I've ever seen in a C. And, of course, Dantley had (and needed) Isiah to feed him the ball. But that just wasn't enough. AD wanted to be the ballhandler in the low post at all times. Never mind that Isiah was a terrific PG and that Laimbeer was an All-Star C whose offensive game had as little conflict was AD as a C could have. Never mind that AD had some wear on him and was starting to slip. Never mind that the Pistons were obviously a championship caliber team. AD thought the team and coach should change for him. Check out an “official” nba.com page on this.

http://www.nba.com/pistons/news/trades_080218.html

As I noted some time ago on another thread, Dantley didn't want to take a bench role...even though it meant he would have been able to handle the ball more (i.e. at his normal clip). He kind of sulked in Detroit; since he didn't get as many touches, he didn't play as hard on offense. His shooting efficiency took a substantial hit. He was still productive, but he wasn't happy, and he made that clear. To be fair, Dantley was also getting to the end of the line as a player. He'd had a couple of (major) injuries and played over 30,000 regular season minutes by the time the championship season started. And his style of play was not conducive to aging. His defense got worse, and his offensive efficiency dropped. You put up with a guy like Dantley when his defense is marginal to below average and he's a crappy teammate because of his scoring output and efficiency. Once those things start to go, his value drops fast...which is what happened.

Which is kind of too bad. Had he been able to make more of an effort on D and be willing to be an effective bench player and more gracious teammate, Dantley might have had a second career something like McAdoo's. Didn't happen.

And as for this season...Darrell Griffith was a very good player. Rickey Green was a good to very good player. The three headed combo frontcourt of Mark Eaton, Thurl Bailey, and Rich Kelley was terrific defensively and adequate offensively—how does

71 mpg, 18.8 ppg, 18.9 rpg, 4.9 apg, 6.0 bpg, .495 FG%

sound? You get a 36 mpg C that gives your 10 points, 10 rebounds, and 4 blocks(!) a game, and a 35 mpg PF that gives you 9 and 9 with 2 blocks in 35 minutes. With both guys you giving you between 2 and 3 assists a game, and shooting around 50%. So what you've got is a good starting lineup other than Adrian Dantley.

And on the bench? John Drew, who scored in buckets. Jeff Wilkins, a completely competent 15-20 mpg player at PF/C. That a solid 7 man rotation without Adrian Dantley. I'm totally and completely unconvinced about AD's value this year or any year. With an average SF like, say Eddie Johnson (the big Eddie Johnson who was with the Kings in 1984), I can see the Jazz being a near .500 team. They had 45 with AD. I didn't see a huge team impact then; I don't see it now.

[sp6r=underrated]

This is his last good year for this project. He is not someone who deserved a vote in this project, but I really was impressed how well Laimbeer played when I was considering my vote. I've felt for awhile he is underappreciated due to his dirtiness. He was never a top 10 guy in any of these seasons, but he was always a good player who gave you reliable production year in year out. A very good player.

[Dr Positivity]

I think Laimbeer is historically a little underrated as well. Mainly because from bigs you're usually picking between defensive/rebound guys who don't spread the floor, and offensive players who can shoot out to 20-25 feet and open up the paint area for finishing, but usually these guys are more frail and 'soft' and mediocore at best defenders and rebounders. Sheed and Laimbeer are two of the few long ball shooting bigs who fit in defensively and spread the floor offensively, but while Sheed didn't rebound, Laimbeer was actually a 12-13rpg guy too. It's extremely impressive he was one of the league's best offensive rebounders while having a perimeter offensive game

[ronnymac2]

It is very rare that I type these words. I agree with JB 100%. His point is correct that it is bizarre for two lakers to be top 3 considering the season LA had.

1984 was a very mediocre year for elite teams. The lakers with two of the top three players in the NBA only won 54 games, and had a point differential worse than the Knicks (who also forced the Celtics to a game 7).

Who cares if they made the finals considering the crap they played (38 win Kings, 41 win Suns, 43 win Mavs). They got to play the equivalent of three eight seeds in a row.

They had the second best record in the league during the regular season, despite Magic Johnson missing 15 games. They did what they were supposed to do against the Western Conference. Then they were defeated by the best team in the league in a competitive seven game series.

It isn't that hard to believe they were top 5 players this year.