Retro POY '96-97 (Voting Complete)

[Silver Bullet]

1. MJ
2. Pippen
3. Malone
4. Hakeem
5. Shaq

Meh - I'm sure there's going to a lotta hue and cry about my vote. But there was only one contender this year. I did the same when the Lakers were unbeatable.
Why Rodman ? Well, he did only two things well, rebound and play suffocating defense. Luckily those were the two biggest needs of the Bulls.

If you replace Rodman with Barkley, do they get better or worse ? I think they'd get substantially worse.

How about Payton ? - I still think they get worse.

Rodman did what he was asked to do as well as any player ever.

The rebound differential between the first and second guy is just flabbergasting - it might be the biggest lead a first position players has ever had on the 2nd guy.

EDIT: And yeah I know he didn't play the whole season.

[kaima]

1. MJ
2. Pippen
3. Malone
4. Hakeem
5. Rodman

This list is awful.

And, unsurprisingly, so is the logic underlying.

Something tells me that team result won't matter when it's time to rank David Robinson in other POY threads, nor his lousy individual performances against superior post players.

Meh - I'm sure there's going to a lotta hue and cry about my vote. But there was only one contender this year. I did the same when the Lakers were unbeatable.

Utah lost the 97 Finals by 4 points.

That's not close? That's unbeatable?

I get the feeling you didn't watch much of 90s basketball.

[NO-KG-AI]

Ah, that's a clever way to get around the backlash that you'd take if you blatantly downgrade Mike.

[An Unbiased Fan]

#1 Malone
#2 MJ

Both were All-NBA/All-D 1st (with Malone winning MVP), and both led their teams to the Finals where the Bulls took it in 6. BUT, I don't feel beating the Jazz in the Finals outwieghs the better RS Malone had. That whole 97' Finals were kinda ugly really, and close in almost every game.

If Malone had faltered and lost in the earlier rounds, then MJ would be #1, but I can't penalize Malone for losing in 6 to the better team.

#3 Grant Hill - Was about to grab the torch from MJ this year. Hill's overall game & skillset was crazy. And took Detroit to 54 wins with Lindsey Hunter & an OLD Dumars as his supporting cast.

#4 Hakeem - Last great year
#5 Payton

[Silver Bullet]

1. MJ
2. Pippen
3. Malone
4. Hakeem
5. Rodman

This list is awful.

And, unsurprisingly, so is the logic underlying.

Something tells me that team result won't matter when it's time to rank David Robinson in other POY threads, nor his lousy individual performances against superior post players.

Meh - I'm sure there's going to a lotta hue and cry about my vote. But there was only one contender this year. I did the same when the Lakers were unbeatable.

Utah lost the 97 Finals by 4 points.

That's not close? That's unbeatable?

I get the feeling you didn't watch much of 90s basketball.

Look. First of all the 5th spot is really not that important, if someone honors an under appreciated player with a 5th place vote, it's not really much of a big deal.

I absolutely don't think Rodman was one of the 5 best players in the league. But IMO, He was probably one of the 5 best players in the league for that particular team at that point in time.

And yes, the Bulls were unbeatable IMO - just like the Lakers were unbeatable, even though the Blazers were up 18 in game 7 of the WCF's and the Kings were one Robert Horry lucky shot away from winning in 01...
Playoff games are always close - and you can have close playoff games and still have an unbeatable team.
Were the 08 Celtics unbeatable - I'd venture if they played the way they played, you could replay that year a 100 times, and they'd win each time. Even though they went 7 games against virtually everyone.


As for Pippen - yeah I think he's one of the most underrated players ever. It's been 12 years since we've seen peak Pip - name one guy that reminds you of him. There's nobody -
I mean, has there ever been a better 2nd option and will there ever be a better 2nd option. You could wait a 100 years and you'd never find a better player to play 2nd fiddle. Could he have done the same things had he had to run his own team ? I don't know. But the thing is - people who claim to know, don't know either. I think Pip could carry a championship team easily, as long as you paired him with a Ben Gordon, a Jason Richardson or someone of that ilk.

Regardless, we've seen this with the Lakers too - once you know you can win the chip, you tend to coast, and then really go into that extra gear with minutes left in the series. But you win - because you know how to win. Even if it's by 2 points, or a point or whatever. I mean, was anybody shocked when the ball bounced to Horry and he hit that three or when Peja and Doug Christie airballed successive three pointers with minutes left ? I mean, yes the games were close - but everybody knew the Lakers would win.
Unbeatable teams will find a way to win, even if it's by a point at the buzzer.

[Sedale Threatt]

1. Jordan
2. Malone

The same theme as last year. Jordan rose to the occasion, Malone -- whose game dropped off big-time in the playoffs -- didn't. And this time, there's even less of a difference in the regular season. An easy choice.

3. Hakeem. Was thinking pretty seriously about putting him at No. 2, but even though I argued his case earlier in the thread I came around. One great series does not offset the huge edge Malone built up during the regular season.

To be honest, I'm not really wild about anybody after here. Shaq's an easy pick at No. 3 if he's healthy, but missing 31 games is simply too much. Nobody else after that is truly great, in my opinion. Hell, neither was Dream, but he's still a pretty easy choice.

4. Pippen. Prone to disappearing at times, but still a great player who impacted the game in so many different ways. One of my favorite non-Lakers of all time.

5. Hill. Was thinking about Ewing here, but I guess I'm pretty ambivalent about either. Hill was an offensive force, and an underrated defensive player, so I choose him.

[Sedale Threatt]

I mean, was anybody shocked when the ball bounced to Horry and he hit that three or when Peja and Doug Christie airballed successive three pointers with minutes left ? I mean, yes the games were close - but everybody knew the Lakers would win. Unbeatable teams will find a way to win, even if it's by a point at the buzzer.

There's a great quote that I can't remember exactly -- either the wording or who said it (either Churchill or some ancient historian) -- that illustrates the fallacy you're succumbing to here: To view history as an inevitability is to distort.

Just because that series, or any other for that matter, turned out the way it/they did doesn't mean it was a foregone conclusion.

I'm a Lakers fan and I didn't know we were going to win until the final buzzer went off in overtime of Game 7. Just because it turned out the way it did doesn't mean it couldn't have easily, with any number of about 10 different bounces of the ball, gone the other way.

Hell, but for about five or six plays, the Lakers could have swept Boston in 84 instead of losing in seven games.

Which is why there's no such thing as unbeatable. By strict definition, that means if you played a series out a million times, the same team would win a million times. There isn't a single team in the history of organized sports who could make that claim.

[Sedale Threatt]

This isn't the quote I'm thinking of, but it's in the ballpark:

"Nothing is inevitable until it actually happens." -- J.P. Taylor

[Silver Bullet]

I mean, was anybody shocked when the ball bounced to Horry and he hit that three or when Peja and Doug Christie airballed successive three pointers with minutes left ? I mean, yes the games were close - but everybody knew the Lakers would win. Unbeatable teams will find a way to win, even if it's by a point at the buzzer.

There's a great quote that I can't remember exactly -- either the wording or who said it (either Churchill or some ancient historian) -- that illustrates the fallacy you're succumbing to here: To view history as an inevitability is to distort.

Just because that series, or any other for that matter, turned out the way it/they did doesn't mean it was a foregone conclusion.

I'm a Lakers fan and I didn't know we were going to win until the final buzzer went off in overtime of Game 7. Just because it turned out the way it did doesn't mean it couldn't have easily, with any number of about 10 different bounces of the ball, gone the other way.

Hell, but for about five or six plays, the Lakers could have swept Boston in 84 instead of losing in seven games.

Which is why there's no such thing as unbeatable. By strict definition, that means if you played a series out a million times, the same team would win a million times. There isn't a single team in the history of organized sports who could make that claim.

Well, I think the 16-1 Lakers could.

While I agree with you, aren't we talking about the 2nd greatest team of all time (the 69 win Bulls) ?
I mean, fine, they weren't unbeatable - they were still the 2nd greatest team of all time. And being a four time champion, it's not a stretch to think that if they really really set their mind to it and went all out in the regular season, they could win 75+ games. If someone had given you 3-1 odds on putting your life savings on the Jazz for the 96-97 NBA finals - would you ? How about 4-1 ?

Anyway, I have removed Rodman, primarily because he didn't play enough games. I think if you put Zo or Shaq on that Bulls team, they'd be even better. Zo played 66 games, Shaq played 51 or something.

[Sedale Threatt]

Well, I think the 16-1 Lakers could.

You just illustrated my point precisely. How could the Lakers be considered unbeatable if they were, in fact, beaten?

And being a four time champion, it's not a stretch to think that if they really really set their mind to it and went all out in the regular season, they could win 75+ games. If someone had given you 3-1 odds on putting your life savings on the Jazz for the 96-97 NBA finals - would you ? How about 4-1 ?

No, because I'm not a gambler; my life savings means too much to me to risk on a game of a chance.

But somebody who does gamble would probably look at those odds as too good to pass up. Make that same bet on the 75 Finals, or the 69, 02 and 08 Super Bowls, and you might never have to work again for the rest of your life.

[Silver Bullet]

Well, I think the 16-1 Lakers could.

You just illustrated my point precisely. How could the Lakers be considered unbeatable if they were, in fact, beaten?

unbeatable over the course of a season. Surely you didn't think I meant it literally.

If you replayed the season a million times, and the Lakers won 975,000 titles - would you consider that team unbeatable ?

[Sedale Threatt]

And being a four time champion, it's not a stretch to think that if they really really set their mind to it and went all out in the regular season, they could win 75+ games. If someone had given you 3-1 odds on putting your life savings on the Jazz for the 96-97 NBA finals - would you ? How about 4-1 ?

No, because I'm not a bettor; my life savings means too much to me to risk on a game of a chance.

But somebody who does gamble would probably look at those odds as too good to pass up. Make that same bet on the 75 Finals, or the 69, 02 and 08 Super Bowls, and you might never have to work again for the rest of your life.

[Sedale Threatt]

Well, I think the 16-1 Lakers could.

You just illustrated my point precisely. How could the Lakers be considered unbeatable if they were, in fact, beaten?

unbeatable over the course of a season. Surely you didn't think I meant it literally.

If you replayed the season a million times, and the Lakers won 975,000 titles - would you consider that team unbeatable ?

No -- they'd still lose 25,000 times.

I'm probably taking this too literally, but I played cards pretty heavily for a while, where I got totally absorbed in the odds and percentages. Lose enough one-outers, and you start to realize that absolutely anything can happen, at any time, and that there are no sure things.

Especially not in the examples you're using, with the Portland/Lakers, Sacramento/Lakers and Utah/Bulls series. Those outcomes were anything but inevitable. They could have easily turned out differently.

[Gongxi]

It's called the historian's fallacy, Sedale. It was on the list of cognitive biases I pointed out SB was utilizing, and he didn't fail to deliver.

[Sedale Threatt]

It's called the historian's fallacy, Sedale. It was on the list of cognitive biases I pointed out SB was utilizing, and he didn't fail to deliver.

I know I've seen it elsewhere, too. Can't remember where -- I think an account of the Punic Wars or something. But I definitely remember being stuck when I read it, if not the exact wording.

[ElGee]

Olajuwon slides in last ahead of Gary Payton, Penny (injury) and Shaq (injury). This reminded me of Duncan in 06, where the playoffs showed that Hakeem was still a top 3 player in the league,

Did he really do that in the post-season? Olajuwon had one series where he scored at high volume, whereas in the prior two series he had a scoring average of 20.

He cruised against the Timberwolves, and deferred in some ways against the Sonics (his nemesis).

Basically, Olajuwon had one great series in 97. The telling point is how important Barkley was against Seattle.

That's not to say that Olajuwon wasn't near his peak, but that it's specifically questionable as to how well this was demonstrated over the course not only of the regular season but the playoffs as well.

That also can be blamed on matchups. In 94/95, missing the Sonics was a godsend. Hakeem just did not play well, relative to expectation, against George Karl's schemes.

I thought so. When Barkley and Drexler were out in the regular season (yes, they missed time together) Hakeem had some monster performances. Starting around the second round, my impression was he ramped it up, or at least Houston started going through him more. He was getting Maloney/Ellie/Johnson open shots, and had big assist numbers in the games they made 3s. It's the Hakeem formula: when the 3-point shooters struggled, so did Houston. All his other production went way up in the playoffs after round 1...

[ElGee]

1. MJ
2. Pippen
3. Malone
4. Hakeem
5. Shaq

Meh - I'm sure there's going to a lotta hue and cry about my vote. But there was only one contender this year. I did the same when the Lakers were unbeatable.
Why Rodman ? Well, he did only two things well, rebound and play suffocating defense. Luckily those were the two biggest needs of the Bulls.

If you replace Rodman with Barkley, do they get better or worse ? I think they'd get substantially worse.

How about Payton ? - I still think they get worse.

Rodman did what he was asked to do as well as any player ever.

The rebound differential between the first and second guy is just flabbergasting - it might be the biggest lead a first position players has ever had on the 2nd guy.

EDIT: And yeah I know he didn't play the whole season.

I'm not even sure this is worth mentioning given your inconsistencies throughout, but you were insistent on punishing Garnett in 08 for minutes played and time missed. Yet here, Shaq misses 31 games and doesn't crack 2000 minutes and he makes the cut?? His advanced stats aren't even that good:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y2=1997

If no one else has a problem with this I guess it doesn't matter...

As far as Pippen at No. 2, I'll just "unique" does not necessarily mean better. When Sabonis came to Portland he was unique, he wasn't the best though...

[Gongxi]

No, everyone has a problem with it. It's just, what can be done now? He's gonna vote, he's gonna vote (in some manner, if not blatantly raising his vote) for his favorite players, or against (in some manner, if not blatantly lowering his vote) his least favorite, and then he'll figure out some logic to make that 'make sense'. We've see this song and dance from him, hopefully when we get into the early 80s there's no one left for him to try and help or hurt and he'll just vote normally.

[ElGee]

#1 Malone
#2 MJ

Both were All-NBA/All-D 1st (with Malone winning MVP), and both led their teams to the Finals where the Bulls took it in 6. BUT, I don't feel beating the Jazz in the Finals outwieghs the better RS Malone had. That whole 97' Finals were kinda ugly really, and close in almost every game.

If Malone had faltered and lost in the earlier rounds, then MJ would be #1, but I can't penalize Malone for losing in 6 to the better team.

#3 Grant Hill - Was about to grab the torch from MJ this year. Hill's overall game & skillset was crazy. And took Detroit to 54 wins with Lindsey Hunter & an OLD Dumars as his supporting cast.

#4 Hakeem - Last great year
#5 Payton

How did Malone have a better regular season?

[ElGee]

No, everyone has a problem with it. It's just, what can be done now? He's gonna vote, he's gonna vote (in some manner, if not blatantly raising his vote) for his favorite players, or against (in some manner, if not blatantly lowering his vote) his least favorite, and then he'll figure out some logic to make that 'make sense'. We've see this song and dance from him, hopefully when we get into the early 80s there's no one left for him to try and help or hurt and he'll just vote normally.

What's ironic is that he refers to both the 97 Bulls and 08 Celtics as "one of the greatest teams ever." (SRS supports this.) He calls KG and Pip the two best second bananas ever. They are both similar players in terms of defensive prowess, versatility and even the criticism they receive. He thinks Jordan and Rodman were BOTH top 5 players (on a Phil Jackson coached team). Yet those 08 Celtics apparently have one top 5 player (Pierce?) and KG isn't anywhere close to No. 2.

Why do I get the feeling if KG played with Jordan he'd sing his praises but if Pip were the MVP candidate for the 08 Celtics (Kobe's MVP year) he would find a way to not even put him in the top 5?

Anyway, onto the early 80s...