Retro POY '94-95 (Voting Complete)

[ronnymac2]

Just....wow at anybody taking Robinson over Olajuwon. The only justification I have seen is "Look at the MVP!"

MVP doesn't equal best player. This is the Player of the Year. Most valuable doesn't equal best. I would have given the Most Valuable Player honor in the REG SEA to Robinson, too. Best player of the upper elite players with just a good supporting cast (nothing special). Robinson fits that, no doubt. That doesn't mean he is the best.

Since I haven't seen anything resembling a compelling argument for taking Robinson over Hakeem, I see no reason to defend my stance.

Olajuwon over Robinson because he's better.

My (non-existent) argument is no better and no worse than anything else I've seen regarding these two.


O'neal vs. Robinson
Think of Robinson and O'neal in terms of business. Talk only of this year (so Shaq's younger age isn't a factor). We are talking about product. Which one would you pay for?

Note: Shaq played 79 games and didn't have ego issues, conditioning problems, injury issues, or off-court issues that have been rightly held against him in the past (well...future). There were no questions regarding his defensive effort or the consistency of it like in 2001 He is clean this year, for lack of a better term.


They dominated the league in the regular season to just about the same extent statistically. Slight edge to Robinson in advanced stats. Shaq won the scoring title (and was first in total points). He led the league in field goal makes and attempts, and was second in field goal percentage. Think about that for a minute. They both led great teams.

Then we get to the playoffs. Robinson plays in 15 games; Shaq plays in 21. Robinson plays 3 minutes per game more. His advanced stats and raw stats go down from the regular season...some noticeably (including PER, ws/48). Shaq beats him in just about every category (averages/percentages and totals). In the most important time of the season, the only place where Robinson would have an edge on Shaq (that is....stats), he does not.

How did this happen though? How did Robinson's stats go down? More importantly, why did his play go down, especially on offense? As somebody hoping to invest in one of these products, you should be asking yourself this. Why, when I need something done at a crucial time, is one product breaking down while the other is staying strong?

Shaq merely did his thing against an overmatched Boston squad. They didn't belong. He merely gets credit for doing what he's supposed to do.

Against Chicago, a very good defensive team with a real wild card in Michael Jordan, Shaq played fantastic basketball. He did 24/11 through 4 games, and the series was tied 2-2. Had a few 25/10-ish games and a near triple-double. Then, in the big game 5, he had an atrocious first half shooting the ball that was only rectified because he kept gathering his own misses (thus, he grabbed a playoff record 14 offensive rebounds in the game). It was awful shooting...the game is on youtube. He kept rushing shots and missing, then tipping the ball and missing. His second half was much, MUCH better. He calmed himself and made decisive moves. He adapted and performed better. He made huge plays down the stretch. Ended up with 23/22 with 5 blocks, 2 steals, and 4 assists.

Then, game 6 in Jordan's home arena. 27/13 with 4 steals and 4 assists. Everybody knows the play where Shaq strips Scottie from behind and goes the other way and dunks it while Pippen follows. IIRC, that play ended the third quarter of this game. Big play at a crucial moment. Not just a fun highlight.

You need to watch those last two games against CHI. Shaq was doing what Robinson wouldn't. Shaq made this one pass in one of those games where he ran to grab the rebound and passed it over his shoulder without looking to HoGrant for a dunk. He took the chance, going for the win. He ended up looking like Jason Kidd on the play. He gave his team a chance.

Against Indy and a good C in Smits (and good team overall), Shaq played very well. Had some monster games. Played badly in games 3 and 4 due to foul trouble (hold that against him). Came back with another gem in a gm 5. Played decent in gm 6, but his team lost. He came out with amazing focus in gm 7...also on youtube. He was decisive and confident with his moves and shot, and was aggressive from the start. He would have played better than 25/11 if ORL didn't blow them out in the 3rd (Dennis Scott annhilated INDY with 3's).

Then, going up against the best player in the game, Shaq played amazing in game 1 of the finals, his first finals. Had a near triple-double. He produced in game 2 (wouldn't call it a fantastic game though), then was dominant in game 3 again. He played well in game 4. He showed that he could stand toe-to-toe with a superior player. He could match the production of the best player in the game- on the biggest stage. Shaq clearly wasn't the better player at that point, but he played great.


Robinson played all right against DEKE (averaged 19 ppg on 43% shooting). He did what he was supposed to do against just an average team.......I guess.

He destroyed the Lakers. Just note....LA won 48 games in the REG SEA, but their pythag. was 40-42. They were top 10 in neither defense nor offense, and they weren't loaded with defensive standouts, especially in the frontcourt. Their SRS was very average.

Then....well, we all know what happened next. What Robinson did, or didn't do, against the same guy that Shaq was able to go toe-to-toe with.


Which are you paying for if your goal is to build around a player that you think will give you the best chance of winning a title in 1995? Shaq can get you to where you need to get to to be in position (the playoffs) just as effectively as Robinson can. Then, he will be a constant force that steps up in the big games and against the big names once in the playoffs. Robinson, due to his offensive limitations (he's Durant of this year, except he has no 3-point shot, doesn't move through screens as well, can't go out and handle the ball full-court or get the ball himself, and doesn't have a killer mentality that says " it's on me, guys"), is not a constant in playoff situations.

You need to think about this. Taking Shaq makes a hell of a lot more sense than taking Robinson.

[kaima]

Fair enough and more or less I agree. But look at my post (that one with the screenshot). Robinson was constantly double teamed, sometimes even triple teamed. So it seems Rudy T knew something that many realGMers (I’m not talking about you) don’t realize – that Robinson was also dangerous on offensive end and you need team effort to stop him, because even great Akeem can’t do it alone. I hope I would have some time at the end of this week and I’ll watch all WCF games from that year (and maybe I’ll do some video of HO vs DR plays), but for now, after re watching G6 it seems that Bob Hill was badly outcoached by Tomjanovich.

Oh, no doubt Robinson was doubled. It would be dumb for HOU to not double him. He's the guy that gets the ball the most in SA's offense, and considering his style of offense can be controlled with help coverage and hard doubles (with little retribution from Robinson's effect on the game considering he isn't putting pressure on the defense by setting up on the block effectively). Sure, Robinson can make the swing pass and share the ball, and it's the right thing to do.

Like I said, that's fine if you're not the man. You need to give me something else. Duncan, Jabbar, Shaq, and Hakeem were swarmed at various times in their careers, too. Take KAJ in 77 against the Blazers. He barely could get the ball because his guards didn't even play in the series (literally...IIRC, they were injured, and their replacements sucked). He still produced. He still helped his teammates on offense.

David Robinson did not do this in 1995 because of a fundamental flaw in his game. This must count against him.

That's the key point.

Robinson did this again and again, and by analyzing that I think we arrive at some disappointing truths about him.

People shouldn't confuse losing as a team with what happened with D-Rob in 94, 95 and 96: that is, the team losing because he lost his post matchup in such a lopsided manner.

[semi-sentient]

Updated my rankings and moved Shaq to #2 over D-Rob, as I suspected I would after a few others chimed in.

[Optimism Prime]

1. Hakeem Olajuwon
2. Shaquille O'Neal
3. David Robinson
4. Charles Barkley
5. Karl Malone

Great year for bigs.

[Doctor MJ]

4. John Stockton
5. Karl Malone

Very interesting. Guys, any other thoughts on that subject? Because after mysticbb post I consider changing my votes and put Stockton in top 5. But above Malone? That’s really interesting.

Well to me the thing that puts Malone clearly ahead of Stockton is that as Stockton took on less and less of a role over time, Malone's role increased, and it's in those years where the Jazz were THE Jazz everyone thinks about when they think of them being almost-champions. Contrary to common understanding, early on, there was quite a bit of debate as to who was the more valuable player between Malone & Stockton, so it's not simply that Malone was classified as the star to begin with and Stockton was just assumed to be nothing more than a sidekick.

It also needs to be noted, that what specifically was improving during this transition was the offense.

To be fair though, this was the year where the Jazz first reached elite status, and we aren't yet seeing the clear transition to the Malone-based team

[mysticbb]

To me, Nash is a product of the system, while Stockton, along with Malone, made the system.

Well, check out how that system works in New York. ;)

Really, Nash is controlling the game at least as much as Stockton. Nash is even better at this, because he can also really take over with scoring. It is suprising that Nash is a part of the best offensive teams in NBA history.

Code: Select all

Rk  Team                Year  Ortg  AL  PG
1.  Dallas Mavericks    2004 112.1  9.2 Nash
2.  Phoenix Suns        2005 114.5  8.4 Nash
3.  Phoenix Suns        2010 115.5  8.0 Nash
4.  Chicago Bulls       1997 114.4  7.7
5.  Utah Jazz           1998 112.7  7.7 Stockton
6.  Dallas Mavericks    2002 112.2  7.7 Nash
7.  Chicago Bulls       1996 115.2  7.6
8.  Boston Celtics      1988 115.4  7.4
9.  Phoenix Suns        2007 113.9  7.4 Nash
10. Denver Nuggets      1982 114.3  7.4
11. Sacramento Kings    2004 110.3  7.4
12. Los Angeles Lakers  1987 115.6  7.3 Magic
13. Chicago Bulls       1992 115.5  7.3
14. Dallas Mavericks    2003 110.7  7.1 Nash
15. Los Angeles Lakers  1998 111.9  6.9
16. Utah Jazz           1997 113.6  6.9 Stockton
17. Orlando Magic       1995 115.1  6.8
18. Chicago Bulls       1991 114.6  6.7
19. Dallas Mavericks    1987 114.9  6.6
20. Seattle Supersonics 1998 111.6  6.6 Payton
21. Seattle Supersonics 1995 114.8  6.5 Payton
22. Indiana Pacers      1999 108.7  6.5
23. Utah Jazz           2008 113.8  6.3 Williams
24. Phoenix Suns        1995 114.5  6.2
25. Los Angeles Lakers  1985 114.1  6.2 Magic
26. Seattle Supersonics 2005 112.2  6.1
27. Los Angeles Lakers  1986 113.3  6.1 Magic
28. Utah Jazz           1995 114.3  6.0 Stockton
29. Los Angeles Lakers  1989 113.8  6.0 Magic
30. Los Angeles Lakers  1990 114.0  5.9 Magic

If Nash is just a product of a system, a lot of teams could do similar things, but they can't.

But I don't want to make that thread further into a Nash vs. Stockton debate. Thus I leave at that.

[Doctor MJ]

To me, Nash is a product of the system, while Stockton, along with Malone, made the system.

Pace-control alone makes me much more impressed with Stockton. Nash is controlled by pace, whereas Stockton controlled it.

Meaning that Nash needs a definite speed to optimize his game, whereas Stockton can play at any speed and manipulates outcome by changing pace depending on moment.

I think Stockton was transcendent. Unfortunately, I think that same point may make him hard to rank in a system such as this.

Oh I object to this characterization of Nash strongly. The idea that Nash can't run a slow offense is totally without merit. The Phoenix offense with Shaq was still more successful than most of the offenses prime Stockton ever ran. People simply think of it as a failure because it wasn't as good as fast Phoenix.

What does it say that Nash is more useful in a fast offense than a slow one? Only that he's skilled at attacking a defense before they're ready to defend. How is that a bad thing?

Re: the term "system" specifically. Traditionally what it means is that a players stats are inflated because "anybody" can put up good stats in that system. It essentially inflates perception of how irreplaceable a guy is. That's not Nash, his standing is based on irreplaceability, not box score statistics.

[bastillon]

1. Olajuwon. The epitome of a POY, to me. Outstanding regular season, then even better in the postseason en route to a repeat title, while destroying a top rival's reputation along the way. What more do you want?

2. O'Neal. Great RS, great postseason -- just didn't think he was as great as Olajuwon, no matter what the advanced metrics say. Also played much better in the Finals than many give him credit for.

3. Robinson. Tremendous RS followed by historic flameout in the playoffs, which is pretty consistent with his M.O. All the cases in his defense smack of excuse-making to me. Yeah, he put up nice numbers. They still pale in comparison to what they guy he was guarding did.

4. Malone. Thought he was a better two-way player than Barkley. Going out in the first round hurts, but at least he went down swinging.

5. Barkley. Neck and neck with Malone, but Karl was better all-around, in my opinion. Plus, Charles was too inconsistent as his team blew 2-0/3-1 leads in a playoff ouster.

this.

sorry I've got to take care of some things right now, so I won't be able to participate in the upcoming years.

so my list is the same as sedale's. from what I've seen in this thread, I'm pretty lucky not to be able to participate because I'd lose a loooot of time here. some arguments have been really out of line or just irrelevant. anyway, nice to see people like sedale or ronnymac providing really good posts.

edit: after some thinking and double-reading, I'm gonna adjust my list a bit:
1.Dream
2.Shaq
3.Malone
4.Rob
5.Barkley

[mysticbb]

Contrary to common understanding, early on, there was quite a bit of debate as to who was the more valuable player between Malone & Stockton, so it's not simply that Malone was classified as the star to begin with and Stockton was just assumed to be nothing more than a sidekick.

This.

We also have the evidence of the APM results for decade by Winston (http://waynewinston.com/wordpress/?p=158). Stockton with +8.2 made the list of the Top10. That is amazing and really gives me convidence in saying that Stockton's impact was bigger than his boxscore numbers.

It is also a fact that usually the scorer will get rated higher. Only a few times the passer was considered the best player. Kidd was on the Nets, and Magic was. But Magic was also great at scoring. Malone was strong and thus Stockton was never able to seperate himself clearly from Malone. That is different from other players like Nash, Kidd or Magic. But there were several years in which Stockton was the more impactful player and should have been considered the better player on the Jazz.

[Baller 24]

Don't have time to really say my opinions, based on what I've read though:

1) Olajuwon
2) O'neal
3) Robinson
4) Malone
5) Ewing

[mysticbb]

5) Ewing

I know you said you have not much time, but would you care to explain this?

[Doctor MJ]

Contrary to common understanding, early on, there was quite a bit of debate as to who was the more valuable player between Malone & Stockton, so it's not simply that Malone was classified as the star to begin with and Stockton was just assumed to be nothing more than a sidekick.

This.

We also have the evidence of the APM results for decade by Winston (http://waynewinston.com/wordpress/?p=158). Stockton with +8.2 made the list of the Top10. That is amazing and really gives me convidence in saying that Stockton's impact was bigger than his boxscore numbers.

It is also a fact that usually the scorer will get rated higher. Only a few times the passer was considered the best player. Kidd was on the Nets, and Magic was. But Magic was also great at scoring. Malone was strong and thus Stockton was never able to seperate himself clearly from Malone. That is different from other players like Nash, Kidd or Magic. But there were several years in which Stockton was the more impactful player and should have been considered the better player on the Jazz.

Huh. Interesting, you're quoting my statement in support of your argument, but your argument is about the opposite of mine. Just so everyone's clear - my point was that the collective conclusion that Stockton wasn't the best Jazz-man came not in a rushed assumption, but over time as the team achieved increasing success with increasing focus on Malone.

Re: Winston's +/-. Just want to give some points on that.

1st, obviously Winston's not judging players by collective impact but by what they did played even if they played very little. Odd he used that as the basis for his Players of the Decade, but nothing wrong with it as long as everyone understands that.

2nd, while Stockton is the only guy from the Jazz on the list, if Winston had done this snapshot at the half-decade mark, the highest Jazz player would have been Kirilenko, not Stockton. Make of that what you will. I'm a big fan of Kirilenko, but I don't for a minute by that peak Kirilenko > peak Stockton > peak Malone.

Last, that Stockton would continue to be valuable to the very end makes sense. The main criticism people have of him is that he didn't kick it up that extra notch to create when he was hot and his team needed it. However, one of the leading causes of players having a rapid decline in impact is not recognizing that they've lost a step, and thus continuing to try to do things that they can't do any more, and hurting their team. Stockton's reluctance to go out of his comfort zone thus proved a boon to help him take nothing off the table later in his career. He did this while Malone continued trying to play the role he always had - unsuccessfully. In short, there are good reasons to think Stockton's mentality made him more capable of thriving in old age than Malone, and one should tread carefully when trying to extrapolate +/- back to their primes.

[mysticbb]

Huh. Interesting, you're quoting my statement in support of your argument, but your argument is about the opposite of mine.

Not really, I just quoted you, because I wanted to 2nd your statement about the debate. Means, there was a debate, nothing more.

2nd, while Stockton is the only guy from the Jazz on the list, if Winston had done this snapshot at the half-decade mark, the highest Jazz player would have been Kirilenko, not Stockton. Make of that what you will. I'm a big fan of Kirilenko, but I don't for a minute by that peak Kirilenko > peak Stockton > peak Malone.

Actually I didn't use that to say that Stockton was for sure the better player, but to use it as a proof that Stockton had indeed a bigger impact than his boxscore numbers would have indicated and that it is very well possible that Stockton had a bigger impact than Malone.
Malone played one year more on the Lakers, that might have effected his numbers too.

In short, there are good reasons to think Stockton's mentality made him more capable of thriving in old age than Malone, and one should tread carefully when trying to extrapolate +/- back to their primes.

That is a good argument, but as I said Id didn't try to extrapolate those APM into their primes anyway. I just wanted to show that Stockton even in his later days had a big impact. Those +8.2 are for 4 years, 4 years in which he played over 10000 minutes. Thus the sample size isn't that small.

[lorak]

Re: Winston's +/-. Just want to give some points on that.

1st, obviously Winston's not judging players by collective impact but by what they did played even if they played very little. Odd he used that as the basis for his Players of the Decade, but nothing wrong with it as long as everyone understands that.

?
Every player on Winston’s list played a lot of minutes.

2nd, while Stockton is the only guy from the Jazz on the list, if Winston had done this snapshot at the half-decade mark, the highest Jazz player would have been Kirilenko, not Stockton. Make of that what you will. I'm a big fan of Kirilenko, but I don't for a minute by that peak Kirilenko > peak Stockton > peak Malone.

We don’t know what +/- number prime Stockton or prime Malone had. And there’s nothing weird that prime AK would be better than Malone or Stockton in this decade, so when they were old and obviously not as good as in two earlier decades.

[kaima]

To me, Nash is a product of the system, while Stockton, along with Malone, made the system.

Well, check out how that system works in New York. ;

If we're talking about team result, then the point is conceded. If we're talking about individual stat-stuffing, I think it's up for debate.

And even if one concedes that Nash was putting in as much as he's gotten out, the premise remains, and is likely fact, that he doesn't exist as he does now without the system. And the system itself is deeply flawed.

Further, the new hand-checking rules have benefited Nash as much as anyone, perhaps more.

Just keep in mind, before D'Antoni and the rule change, Nash never averaged as many as 9 assists a game or over 50% shooting.

Also, no other player in history, that I know of at least, has had the turnaround that Nash did at such a late date. All of it points to the system+rule changes that favor easier offense from perimeter players.

Really, Nash is controlling the game at least as much as Stockton.

No. Not buying.

Free-flow and cheap offense is the flavor of the moment, and Nash does it well.

But if you can get him at another pace, his effectiveness will drop, as will the Suns'.

Stockton could play at any pace, and could control through that. Which is my point: what Nash does well is limited and flawed, and he's as dependent on it as it is on him.

No team gives up twenty point leads as quickly as Phoenix. On the other hand, if Utah got a decent lead under Stockton, say 10-15 points, it many times felt like 30.

Again, this returns to my point about Stockton's worth being outside statline basics.

Nash is even better at this, because he can also really take over with scoring.

I'd rather have Stockton in the last two minutes than Nash. He wouldn't score as much over the course of the game, but he was a killer in the clutch.

Though hand-check rules have made scoring much easier today than they were in the mid-90s for a guard.

It is suprising that Nash is a part of the best offensive teams in NBA history.

That's an apple to my orange.

Pure offensive rating doesn't mean as much to me as an individual that can dominate both teams with pace-control. Stockton was one of the best ever at this -- because he could switch pace and play within whatever was needed.

Nash can't do this. Get the Suns into a 90 point game, and they're likely toast.

Nash at his best is a mediocre half-court point guard, and he's far less effective with a true post-presence that demands more of a shot clock.

All that said, I'm not going to pursue this here. This debate could derail the entire thread, which would be wrong.

But consider that my analysis and stance on the two. Stockton. Easily.

[mysticbb]

Just keep in mind, before D'Antoni and the rule change, Nash never averaged as many 9 assists a game or over 50% shooting.

I kept that in mind, believe me. I had that debate over and over again, and no offense, but you didn't add anything new to that.

I agree with you that Stockton is in comparison to others underrated, but everything what you are saying in that Nash-Stockton debate is just based on your belief. You refused a pretty strong argument for Nash. You can say that being on one team which has a historical great ORtg might be a fluke, but doing that consistently over the years isn't anymore. I take Nash over Stockton. But that isn't the point of that thread anyway.

[kaima]

One last reply.

Nothing like violating your stance within five minutes. Mea culpa.

But hey, I come from a family of lawyers. You can trust me.

Last reply....now.

Just keep in mind, before D'Antoni and the rule change, Nash never averaged as many 9 assists a game or over 50% shooting.

I kept that in mind, believe me. I had that debate over and over again, and no offense, but you didn't add anything new to that.

Keep in mind, I don't see where anything else is needed.

I agree with you that Stockton is in comparison to others underrated, but everything what you are saying in that Nash-Stockton debate is just based on your belief,

Not really. The shift comes numerically, at the same time as the system and rule changes.

It's a numerical fact that Nash's numbers were a borderlne All-Star's before D'Antoni and the rule changes.

If people want to believe that hand-check rules and run-'n-gun systems don't help specific players' statlines, that's fine. But all the evidence and logic points to this outcome.

And Nash's career isn't just an example of this, but a bizerre outlier.

because you can say that being on one team which has a historical great ORtg might be a fluke, but doing that consistently over the years isn't anymore.

As far as belief, pace-control exists, in team and individuated form as conflation.

Stockton was fantastic at it. Steve Nash isn't on the radar.

ORtg will not deal with or change that argument. And no one puts up cheaper points than the Suns.

[Doctor MJ]

Re: Winston's +/-. Just want to give some points on that.

1st, obviously Winston's not judging players by collective impact but by what they did played even if they played very little. Odd he used that as the basis for his Players of the Decade, but nothing wrong with it as long as everyone understands that.

?
Every player on Winston’s list played a lot of minutes.

I'll clarify: Winston's metric is not saying that Stockton had more impact in 4 years where he played on average less than 30 minutes per game, than all but a handful of players had in 10 years. It's just not. It would never occur to call a metric like that a Player of the Decade metric. However, as long as people understand that this is a per minute metric, there's no fundamental flaw in it.

[Doctor MJ]

I'd rather have Stockton in the last two minutes than Nash. He wouldn't score as much over the course of the game, but he was a killer in the clutch.

Do you realize just how much Nash scores in crunch time? 82games accumulates stats for the last 5 minutes of games within 5 points - Nash typically puts up fantastic numbers. Here's this year:

http://www.82games.com/0910/CSORT11.HTM

Per 48 minutes of "clutch time", Nash goes for 43.6 & 13.4, good for 5th & 1st in the league respectively. I'm not saying Stockton's a choker (I don't believe that), but I find it very hard to believe that Stockton was regularly putting of clutch stats like that. In his defense, you can bring up that Malone as primary scorer is what kept him from achieving that - but your recollection seems to say you either think Stockton put up Kobe-type scoring stats in the clutch, or that you really don't have a good idea how Nash performs in the clutch.

[mysticbb]

One last reply.

Which forces me to answer, damn. ;)

Not really. The shift comes numerically, at the same time as the system and rule changes.
It's a numerical fact that Nash's numbers were a borderlne All-Star's before D'Antoni and the rule changes.

Nash in his last 3 years in Dallas, points and assists are pace adjusted (to the Suns 2005) per 36 numbers:

18.5/8.8, 59 ts%, 21.2 PER, 0.178 WS/48, 2x All-NBA 3rd

Compare that to the 2005 Suns numbers:

16.3/12.0, 61 ts%, 22.0 PER, 0.203 WS/48, All-NBA 1st


Well, Nash scored more on the Mavericks with a slightly worse ts%, PER is a little bit up and WS/48 too on the Suns, BUT the numbers were actually rather similar.