Retro POY '82-83 (Voting Complete)

[ElGee]

My 1983 POY Ballot:

1. Moses Malone
2. Larry BIrd
3. Magic Johnson
4. Sidney Moncrief
5. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Weak year. I see a large drop after the first 2. I agree with ronnymac that Bird probably was the "best" player in the NBA at the time. I wonder if we did this in 84 or 85 how many first place votes he would have had. Malone just had a monster season and with his postseason dominance is certainly worthy of trumping Bird for that top spot based on defense, rebounding, scoring efficiency, etc. I'm not sure he holds up to other great bigs historically, but in this season he stood alone and it his playoffs earn him the top spot over Bird.

Btw, people were asking about Bird in the Bucks series.

Bird G1: 17-12 in G1 on something like 7-18 (extrapolating).
Bird G2: DNP Virus
Bird G3: 21-12-6 6 steals on 10-21
Bird G4: I think he had 19 (from telecast). Didn't count assists or boards but they were plentiful as well.

The boradcasters were singing his praises throughout the game -- made some ridiculous passes and active as usual on the glass. Celts shot 38% in first 3 quarters and were destroyed on glass. Lanier's presence was huge throughout the series, as was Moncrief's ability to get in lane/post and Johnson's wing scoring. Boston struggled in the backcourt, in particular Henderson and Tiny.

In game 1 Bird dislocated a finger -- or as it's called today, "broke" finger. In games 3 and 4, Bird makes a number of great team defensive plays. Sneaks around Lanier from the backside for a steal on the post. Rotates over and blocks a layup. Understandable why he was so esteemed as a team defender. (Marques Johnson does bake him 1 v 1, but Bird didn't guard him unless McHale was in the game and even then not always). The two games from the series I saw he was frequently commanding double teams, breaking down the defense with drives (usually of jab steps and head fakes) and Boston ran a lot of their offense through him. McHale wasn't at his peak. DJ wasn't there yet. But Bird was Bird (or 95% of "Bird").

Anyway, Magic doesn't seem to have the same offensive arsenal he would possess as the years progressed. The Lakers also had a lot of offensive balance on that team, so it certainly wasn't like everything was running through him or they were in full showtime mode that was to come. I wish we had more articles/logs/film, but I gather from my exposure and the playoff numbers that he didn't take over after some team injuries in the manner he could/did in later years when asked to play an expanded role. Still the best of the rest for the obvious reasons to me.

Squid had a career playoff high 26 against Boston in G3, then 25 in G4. His slashing and post play are highly effective and his scoring throughout the year sizes up well with this competition. Add in the defense and he's next. These guys probably wouldn't be making any top 5 in this project we've done though.

Kareem goes last based on his elite post scoring and solid defense. Of course, he's older, plays a few minutes less than everyone else, but what really prevents him from jumping into the mix with Moses and Bird is his rebounding. The low numbers are symptomatic of something bigger that year, as he struggled to grab boards at all against Philadelphia. As in, something like 5 per 36 minutes over the course of the season.

[tkb]

Moses
Magic
Bird
Dr J
KAJ

[Mean_Streets]

1. Moses
2. Bird
3. Magic
4. Kareem
5. Julius Erving

[mysticbb]

I didn't have much time and I really hope it becomes better for the next year, but I guess I have found a good Top 5 for 1982-83, at least I'm quite comfortable with that:

Vote:

1. Moses Malone
2. Larry Bird
3. Magic Johnson
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
5. Sidney Moncrief

HM: Julius Erving

[Doctor MJ]

Going to be adding this up in a few hours. Was hoping to provide a more detailed vote, but just couldn't get to it:

1. Moses
2. Magic
3. Bird
4. Moncrief
5. Erving.

[drza]

I already voted, but since the thread is still open I'll tell my quick anecdote. This year, 1983, is probably the first that I have any true memories about watching basketball. I have flashes that perhaps came from earlier years, but I remember Philly winning this title. I remember because my dad was a big Dr. J fan, and this was the year the Doctor finally won. I have memories of them playing the Lakers, and thinking of it as a clash of the Titans because I knew the Lakers were great. The funny thing is, back then, I would have sworn that Dr. J was the star of that team. That's how I realize just how young I was at the time...it really wasn't until the last few years, when I started hanging around this site, that I realized just how ridiculous Mo Malone was at that time. I always thought of him as Dr. J's sidekick, when in reality he was the talent on the team.

Nevertheless, I do think that though Mo was the talent it was J that was still the heart, the leader of that team. We could look to Mo's words of how it was still Doc's team, and how he felt that he had to win it for Doc, but that could have been just lip service. But in the things I've read, everyone associated with that team expressed the same sentiments. They were playing, trying to win one, for Doc. As an analogy, maybe a basketball version of Jeter and ARod...one is the talent with the ridiculous numbers, but the other is the leader.

Either way, I'm glad that there was this season. Mo was a 3-time MVP. Doc was...well, Doc. They deserved to get a ring. And they provided one of the great sports memories of my early childhood in getting it.

[TrueLAfan]

Been traveling, so I’ve missed out on replying…sorry. And... ^^ ... totally agree withdrza. Nice bit of writing and memory. It's diffcult to describe the amount of respect and genuine liking that Julius Erving had among everyone--fans, players, management. Everyone. Eveyrone wanted Dr. J to win. Very, very few players in any sport command that type of power. Jerry West had it. Julius Erving. That's about all I can think of in basketball. Walter Payton had it in football. Willie Mays and Hank Aaron in baseball; Roberto Clemente too. It's even more rare today, largely because of the inreased impact of media and the ridiculous sums of money thrown at professional athletes. But the effect of that feeling is valuable; moreso because of its rarity. Moses Malone was a multiple MVP who had been in the league for nearly 10 years when he jopined the Sixers. Nobody said, "We need to win it a ring for Moses...he's so deserving." Here's what Sports Illustrated said after the Sixers won the title

Most of the Lakers admitted during the finals that if they were unable to repeat as champions, there was some small consolation: At least the Doc would finally get his ring. Erving bathed in the wave of affection that he felt from the fans this season. "You can feel the vibes," he said, "feel the people pulling for you."

And even more telling is what Moses himself said after sweeping the Lakers.

"This was for the Doc," Malone said. "I wanted to be able to say that I played on a world championship team with Dr. J."

One of the things I'm really concscious of in a project like this is just how important those intangibles are. No matter how you work out the numbers, no matter what your "system" of analysis is, you need to leave some space (in my opinion, a whole lot of space) for what people thought and felt at the time. I don't know exactly how many wins the affection and respect for Julius Erving was worth. But I was there, and I know it was worth a lot.

*

Why did I think Moncrief had a mediocre to poor playoff performance? Well, it’s not necessarily his fault. He was great against the Celtics—and no team was going to beat the Sixers in 1983. But, still, the Sixers took away the Squid’s passing lanes, and Bobby Jones switched off effectively against him. (Bobby Jones…man, he was awesome on D). Moncrief’s shooting and passing took a big hit against the Sixers…more than, say, Kareem’s did. He score only 7 points in game 1 of the Sixers series (which the bucks lost in overtime), and never really got his full game going. I wish we had the boxes, because I remember Moncrief having an unusually high amount of turnovers. On the other hand, that was typical for the Sixers opponents…Erving and Jones and Mo Cheeks were massively disruptive perimeter defenders. So it’s not as though I’m really bagging on Moncrief…but, yeah, that series brought him down some. (Marques Johnson had a better series against the Sixers than the Squid.)

If anything, I’m tipping toward moving Magic out of the top 5. I know that sounds like heresy, especially for an admitted Magic fan. But I’m going ot hold with my original vote. Barely.

[ElGee]

^^I don't get the Magic love this year. But I don't get a lot, so...

Johnson averaged 6 turnovers and 51% TS in the FInals. His "advanced" playoff numbers are basically the worst of his career. It's the first season he makes all-nba 1st team, and both on film, statistically and reading old articles he doesn't seem to have the same impact he would even as soon as 1984.

Let's put it this way: Bird in 83 looks a lot closer to Bird in 84 (Wooden did call him game's best then) than Magic in 83 looks to Magic in 84. I haven't seen any evidence to even challenge this (MVP voting, articles, stats, anecdotes, posts in this thread). Bird was unanimous POY in 84.

EDIT: I've added more in my voting post at the top of the page. Sheesh, I feel like Kaima.

[ThaRegul8r]

One of the things I'm really concscious of in a project like this is just how important those intangibles are. No matter how you work out the numbers, no matter what your "system" of analysis is, you need to leave some space (in my opinion, a whole lot of space) for what people thought and felt at the time.

Definitely, which is why I always try to capture what people were thinking at the time. As the project goes back into the '70s and '60s, I think I'll be able to help by providing some insight as to what was going on at the time. I'm trying to get it together while there's still some time before we get there.

[Doctor MJ]

Last call.

[Doctor MJ]

'82-83 Results

Code: Select all

Player               1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pts   POY Shares
1. Moses Malone       21   0   0   0   0 210   1.000
2. Larry Bird          0   9   6   5   1 109   0.519
3. Magic Johnson       0   6  10   4   1 105   0.500
4. Sidney Moncrief     0   6   2   3   5  66   0.314
5. Julius Erving       0   0   2   4   7  29   0.138
6. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 0   0   1   5   6  26   0.124
7. Buck Williams       0   0   0   0   1   1   0.005


[Dr Positivity]

Magic now has 6.4, comfortably passing Duncan into 2nd.

Bird's looking pretty decent at 4.6 too. Needs 1.5 to take down Duncan and 1.3 for Shaq. He got like 1.35 in MVP shares in the real world his first 3 seasons. But also won the title in 81. Should be a close one. Either way it fits my hypothesis that Bird, Shaq, Duncan should more or less be on a similar tier ATL wise with Magic a bit ahead of them

[ronnymac2]

^^^I think he'll get there. People will most likely go gaga over the turnaround his rookie year. I won't, but most will.

I know I shouldn't, but....I'm happy we got Moncrief in a top five. He deserved it this year. I think his play was fantastic and I'm glad that he was in one of my top fives.

[kaima]

But what about the underachievement? That's gone largely unnoticed when ranking Magic/Kareem certain years, but has been used against other great players in this project, and now is being argued against Bird.

I'm also concerned by how lacking the West was for much of LA's dominance over it.

There have been years where this franchise and it's two best players have skated by without a scratch on this basis, or under those rubrics. Vitiated.

It's been under-reported as to how LA underachieved -- with huge talent, remember -- and/or simply played in an underwhelming era/conference relatively.

I've seen no one really argue against this, so much as argue around it or ignore it altogether. Considering the way other players -- fairly or unfairly -- have been judged on team result and impact, I find it disappointing and revealing that Magic and Kareem seem to be praised independent of team issues...at least when team issues are more purple than gold(en).

Not really sure what to say. The Lakers won 5 titles, and got to the finals 9 times. Using lack of competition against them is not illogical, but underachievement?

Extrapolating and comparing, I think it's a fair statement, or at least a reasonable consideration.

If I said that the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, relative to what was possible, sold themselves short and thus underachieved, would this be a ridiculous suggestion? If I said that the 04 Lakers underachieved, whereas maybe the 03 Spurs overachieved, are these ridiculous suggestions?

Achievement is. Just is. When over/under values of analysis are attached, that becomes something else entirely -- a coulda, shoulda, woulda paradigm. Projection. We do it constantly. Otherwise this very project would not exist.

The Derrick Coleman Standard. What you see, what you get, versus what you expect out of someone or something.

Those are phenomenal results

Are first round byes and entire brackets wherein the given team faces competition that's cumulatively below the .500 mark really that phenomenal? That's what we're dealing with from LA, certain years.

Now, you can argue era, and you can accumulate the data at or of a decade's worth or so, but that's part of my point: warring contexts. Different pieces of evidence, and what you (or I, maybe the other guy) value more.

The point also either resumes or remains to the extent of another context of content: that is just how talented most of those teams were, thus upping the expectations from the outset. Overall roster depth, side to side (to...and on and on, between players, individuated and elevated, from whatever era) is not beside the point, but when rewarding great players for team success at the very heart of the matter.

Few teams have been as successful as the 80s Lakers. But let's be honest, likely even fewer have been as talented, particularly for such a length of time.

- and like I said, they had as much history of upsetting teams as getting upset.

Comparative and thus semantic (logistic). The Celtics got upset many times. The Lakers played in a conference where, some years, they had competition so lacking in their own conference that this was nearly a non-starter.

Do these points cancel each other out? I don't know.

What I do know, or at least believe, is that just as your point is valid against Bird (and I will look into it, possibly even digging up one of these threads to discuss it in at a later date), the points discussed from and to either side have been largely ignored or trampled on because of name-value and assumptions from that.

I'm thinking you're talking about actual regular season records, which is interesting generally, but hard to take that seriously when damning a team.

Isn't that intrinsic -- the judgment that comes from regular season records -- to both our sides? Isn't that a huge part of these threads?

Without regular season values projected onto many, if not all, of these matchups, what is the basis for calling one team's victory over another an upset? What would your argument be against the Celtics without that?

The Lakers are just another team.

If that's the case, then they've truly been overrated.

Christ, way to tear up context to make a punchline. You need to stop doing this. You're too smart to resort to cheap tricks that fool no one.

I was going to underline it as a microcosm on the point of contextual worth and value -- my pedagogic theme du jour -- but I knew you would pick up on it.

Happily, you did.

Again, context is king. But the problem becomes mirroring: either funhouse or two reflecting off of each other. Rorschach versus redundancy, but that still is to say that I think we've all got to consider that we're viewing these things from a limited prism; unfortunate to say, more and more so as we go back.

But we also can all do better. How's that for pedantic? Schoolmarmy? Sure.

They got upset a couple times, they pulled off the upset a couple times. And Boston's not just a team that got upset a couple times, they have by far the most embarassing record regarding this in all of history. Upset 7 times, and never pulling off an upset.

Context and conference matter. Boston played in the tougher conference in the eighties.

I would be willing to consider that both these all-time teams were overrated, the Bird/Magic Era as less than it's hyped to be, but I'm not seeing how Boston has more embarrassing numbers against it than LA does (some of those sub-.500 playoff comp runs are truly laughable).

I was about to ask if there was any number of playoff disappointments that would raise your eyebrows - thinking that maybe you just are a guy who believes in not overreacting to small sample sizes. Then I remember you were the main guy crucifying Robinson. Do you realize that Bird's the only star in history with a worse track record for getting upset than Robinson? I don't know how you can care so much about it for Robinson, and not care about it for Bird.

Come on. You know my arguments against Robinson both go beyond that and far more into it on analytical bases; to paraphrase you, you're too smart for this, and I know you know better.

Not to say I'm offended, such is often the nature of debate. The Bobby Fischer affect if not effect in action.

If Bird got his ass kicked, over and over, by someone positionally while being upset, I'd have no trouble docking him. Here. And all-time.

But there is also another side of Bird -- Bird the leader, the bastard, the playmaker, facilitator and the winner (and I'm not talking purely on the basis of championships, or focusing on that as a standard) -- wherein Robinson failed both mentally and on skillset evaluations.

Level of competition is an inherent concern. To a greater degree when considering the nature of these threads, I would think.

How can one fairly analyse Bird and Boston when throwing that out? That's the very basis of what we're doing.

Without proper context, what of meaning?

Okay - you're right that you should always seek to understand in context. What I'm trying to say is things are pretty glaring this year. Getting swept by an average of double digits by an underdog is a big deal. To state otherwise is just wrong.

But I'm not saying otherwise, so much as I'm saying that this has been a problem, between Bird, Magic and Kareem, plausibly throughout this decade. There are yet others, certainly Hakeem, who benefited, while other great players were torn apart certain years under the standardization of team-result and impact.

Specified to this year and Bird, this is exactly why I refused to vote; I simply did not have the time to analyze the troubling numbers in-depth and, then, compare them to underreported and represented stars that were being treated unfairly, assuming the numbers hold under such an exam, V Bird.

[Doctor MJ]

Are first round byes and entire brackets wherein the given team faces competition that's cumulatively below the .500 mark really that phenomenal? That's what we're dealing with from LA, certain years.

Now, you can argue era, and you can accumulate the data at or of a decade's worth or so, but that's part of my point: warring contexts. Different pieces of evidence, and what you (or I, maybe the other guy) value more.

The point also either resumes or remains to the extent of another context of content: that is just how talented most of those teams were, thus upping the expectations from the outset. Overall roster depth, side to side (to...and on and on, between players, individuated and elevated, from whatever era) is not beside the point, but when rewarding great players for team success at the very heart of the matter.

Few teams have been as successful as the 80s Lakers. But let's be honest, likely even fewer have been as talented, particularly for such a length of time.

I dunno. I see a team that in its first 8 years together went 2-1 against the 76ers in the finals, and 2-1 against the Celtics in the finals - both were teams that had some phenomenal years, seems quite respectable. The two upsets to Houston are of course black marks, but getting upset a couple times in 8 years is about what you'd expect for most teams. Certainly it puts them below Jordan's Bulls or Russell's Celtics, and that is relevant when comparing with those teams - but it's hard for me to really throw the book at them for living up to those high standards.

And of course, the Lakers had more success after that despite the fact that by '86-87 they were very clearly a 1 superstar team.

Comparative and thus semantic (logistic). The Celtics got upset many times. The Lakers played in a conference where, some years, they had competition so lacking in their own conference that this was nearly a non-starter.

Do these points cancel each other out? I don't know.

What I do know, or at least believe, is that just as your point is valid against Bird (and I will look into it, possibly even digging up one of these threads to discuss it in at a later date), the points discussed from and to either side have been largely ignored or trampled on because of name-value and assumptions from that.

Multiple times you've taken issue with me pushing overly simplistic points. I plead guilty as charged. In my defense, I'm not trying destroy nuance - I'm trying to express key points succinctly. For people to really get the nuance, I don't think there is any substitute for them doing their own research.

Isn't that intrinsic -- the judgment that comes from regular season records -- to both our sides? Isn't that a huge part of these threads?

Without regular season values projected onto many, if not all, of these matchups, what is the basis for calling one team's victory over another an upset? What would your argument be against the Celtics without that?

<had a longer point here, somehow deleted it>

Repeat champions for the most part just don't take the regular season that seriously. They see it as just preparation for the real thing.

They tend "overperform" in the playoffs as a result - which is part of what makes the Bird Celtics' playoff underperformance so noteworthy.

I was going to underline it as a microcosm on the point of contextual worth and value -- my pedagogic theme du jour -- but I knew you would pick up on it.

Happily, you did.

Again, context is king. But the problem becomes mirroring: either funhouse or two reflecting off of each other. Rorschach versus redundancy, but that still is to say that I think we've all got to consider that we're viewing these things from a limited prism; unfortunate to say, more and more so as we go back.

But we also can all do better. How's that for pedantic? Schoolmarmy? Sure.

Ha. Well, yes we can. I gave a mea culpa above, so I'm not claiming rhetorical purity, but the thing I pointed out of your was worse than the normal violations. To me their the type of thing a quick witted guy can use to pull a bugs bunny-style slap in the face in a verbal argument (which can be fun and amusing), but in text they just seem pointless without some kind of tone identifier (smiley, etc).

Come on. You know my arguments against Robinson both go beyond that and far more into it on analytical bases; to paraphrase you, you're too smart for this, and I know you know better.

Not to say I'm offended, such is often the nature of debate. The Bobby Fischer affect if not effect in action.

If Bird got his ass kicked, over and over, by someone positionally while being upset, I'd have no trouble docking him. Here. And all-time.

But there is also another side of Bird -- Bird the leader, the bastard, the playmaker, facilitator and the winner (and I'm not talking purely on the basis of championships, or focusing on that as a standard) -- wherein Robinson failed both mentally and on skillset evaluations.

Yeah, you got me here as mentioned above. However, like I said, this isn't me just twisting arguments, it's not just that Bird's team is losing - in these losses Bird also tends to really struggle. The fact that Bird has times that he doesn't struggle, and that those times tend to come as he really arrives at his peak is relevant, the fact that Robinson's struggles tend to really occur when he's in a superstar matchup with another big is relevant - but many of the criticisms directed toward Robinson very much apply to Bird in these cases.

[ElGee]

^^Doc, can you expand on why you have Magic over Bird this year?

[semi-sentient]

Site updated: www.dolem.com/poy

Magic takes sole possession of the #2 spot, and Bird jumps past Hakeem for the #6 spot. He'll pass Malone after the next round of voting.

Code: Select all

1.  Michael Jordan    9.578
2.  Magic Johnson     6.407
3.  Tim Duncan        6.153
4.  Shaquille O'Neal  5.910
5.  Karl Malone       4.649
6.  Larry Bird        4.623
7.  Hakeem Olajuwon   4.380
8.  Kobe Bryant       3.658
9.  Kevin Garnett     3.388
10. David Robinson    2.431