f4p wrote:AEnigma wrote:And for Moses, I outright do not see him as being better than other high peak centres left on the board; narrowly winning two of three games against the 1981 Lakers and then winning an easy title by joining a top three roster is pure circumstance at this level, not a convincing argument in itself.
not to always debate with you in these threads
Hey, something needs to drive discussion lol.
but what else does he need to do?
In 1983? Nothing. The team could have been even better, but fair to point out that is pretty meaningless when you cruise through both the regular and post- seasons. So then we ask, what about other years? Did he take some massive leap in 1983? Or was he pretty much the same player as in 1982 but now on a great team, and at that point we should be asking whether other 1982-level seasons could have done the same.
If you are voting for “completeness” of a season, Moses should rank highly, yes. I am not doing that though, nor am I confident everyone taking that approach is fully committed to doing so. You are voting for Kawhi over him, but that was not a more complete season (regardless of the injury). And to be clear, I say that not as a “gotcha” so much as highlighting that “completeness” has its limits for everyone.
won 3 mvp's in 5 years.
We know what you think of Nash’s MVPs, so I doubt you would think this makes for a meaningful argument in reverse. The other Malone was a two-time MVP as well. I do not think 1979 or 1982 were exactly indefensible, but winning MVP in itself is just mildly correlative with strong peaks, not an equivalent. Westbrook and Harden have MVPs and Kawhi does not, and both finished higher in Kawhi’s peak season. But we take Kawhi, and if pressed I think a good chunk of those Westbrook/Harden voters could even agree that Kawhi was more trustworthy in the postseason. Like, I know you are mostly saying this rhetorically, but it is a common argument: three MVPs therefore top peak.
ok, so to validate those as not just a bunch of scoring and rebounding, he better have some team results. well, he made the finals twice and won once.
But here too what does that say. Iverson won MVP, made the Finals, and “was the 1 in 15-1” against the 2001 Lakers. Is that an all-time peak? Many think so on those merits, and maybe you are planning on making a case for him later (you seem to value scoring efficiency though so I would be surprised), but again we should recognise those are not arguments in themselves.
you're the second i've seen mention it was only 3 games against the lakers. i'm not sure what we're supposed to do with that. magic and kareem knew it was a 3 game series as well and were the defending champs, they should show up. and the loss was also close, so he was no closer to losing than to winning 3 straight (if the series was that long). as a significant underdog.
All true. But we highlight the fact it was a 2-1 series because that is fundamentally different from and more noisy than longer series. The elimination element means it is worth more than 2-1 stretches elsewhere, but it still leaves it more prone to the phenomenon of “stuff happens”. Check out the 1975 Nets for an even more extreme version of what happened to the Lakers.
and then he still had 2 great series
Ehhhhhhhhhh. Do you really think those series stand out at this level? The Spurs series went seven games and required Calvin Murphy to briefly turn into a prime Ray Allen analogue, and they were nothing special.
just to make the finals with a 40 win team, which i believe is the only sub-0.500 team to ever make the finals (at least in the modern era).
And funnily enough if they lost in the conference finals that would have happened regardless.
so he floor raises like crazy.
So what you are doing here is essentially saying, “Look, he can take a forty-win team to the playoff!”… while ignoring he would have been a key reason they only had forty wins. Because honestly this is not that bad a roster. Calvin Murphy was a good offensive player (as we saw against the Spurs). Robert Reid was versatile, a jack-of-all-trades connective tissue player who made life tough for opposing wings and was a reliable third option. Billy Paultz was fine, if long in the tooth (also true of Rudy T). Tom Henderson had recent experience as a key part of a title roster. So it is worth reiterating what they actually did to reach the Finals: they beat a negative SRS team, a 2 SRS team in seven games, and the defending champions 2-1. Do we really care that much about those first two accomplishments? I think it basically comes down to that 2-1 series win, and yeah, good for them, but stuff happens in small samples. I do not think that is anything close to Lebron’s 2007 run, but in the sense
that series is the bulk of the argument, is it that much more notable than Dikembe’s 1994 upset of an 8 SRS team? Rick Barry won a title sweeping a 6.5 SRS Bullets team, but you essentially said you had concerns with his quality of competition. Why does Moses’s not matter to the same extent this year? Also, worth noting it is not as if Moses had anything to do with how abysmally Magic played or how many free throws the Lakers missed uncharacteristically.
then a few years later, he ceiling raises like crazy with a dominant title run.
Does he ceiling raise “like crazy”? It is a decent ceiling raise. I agree the regular season understates the real improvement made. But just for a contemporary comparison, take the 1980 Bucks. 29-27 at the trade deadline. They make a move for an older Bob Lanier; well past his peak, getting close to the tail end of his prime… and they go 20-6 to close out the season, grabbing the division title and then losing narrowly to the defending champion Sonics. Seems like a pretty good ceiling raise, and 1980 Bob Lanier is not at the level of 1982/83 Moses Malone (although 1974 Bob Lanier…)
Or even better, what about Anthony Davis? Traded to a Lakers team that misses the playoffs and was barely .500 with Lebron… then they immediately grab the 1-seed and win an easy title. And this is without me going with the more trollish examples of Rasheed Wallace or Dave DeBusschere, who similarly elevated their teams into champions.
as i've tried to show, the 76ers were clearly less "2017 warriors" and more "team with a rapidly closing window". i believe the results in the subsequent years show this. even the results in 1983 show it, with moses far outpacing his teammates in the playoffs. Dr. J fell off in the playoffs and never did any better going forward. moses rescued his nba legacy with that title.
Agreed… but even still, it was a good team. Probably finish top three in the conference all the same.
just digging into his early rockets years. the rockets had the #1 offense in 1979. was it thanks to a plethora of sweet shooters? well, moses had a TS Add of +250. the rest of the rockets were at +20. and they were 3rd in OReb%. this seems like it was mostly moses being efficient and grabbing all the misses.
the 1980 rockets were 4th in offense. moses was +107 TS Add. the rest of the rockets were -76. 1st in OReb%.
the 1981 rockets were 9th in offense. moses was +192 TS Add. the rest of the rockets were -200! only 10th in OReb%.
the 1982 rockets were still 8th in offense. moses was +166 TS Add. the rest of the rockets were -474!!!!!! back to 1st in OReb% (and this was hungry work because obviously there were a whole lot of misses to chase down).
A.) Comparing efficiencies like that is just 1962 Wilt logic.
B.) Being inefficient does not mean bad. He had good spacers and passers on the teams too.
C.) The 1977 Rockets were even better. Did Moses peak as a rookie?
D.) How were the team’s defences?
E.) This in general is just a strange approach without knowing how it compares to anyone else. 2014 Durant was +384 and his collective teammates were +8. 2006 Dirk was +194 and his teammates were +13. 2008 Kobe was +118 and his teammates were -65. 2003 McGrady was +192 and his teammates were -89. I guess you are probably happy to draw a comparison with Moses to all of them, but 1994 Robinson was +203 and his teammates were -60, and he was a much better passer (and obviously defender) than Robinson. 1990 Ewing was +246 and his teammates were -84, and he was a slightly better passer (and obviously much better defender). 2011 Howard was +217 and his teammates were -15; even worse passer but again much better defender. 2000 Mourning was +212 and his teammates were -70; similarly bad passer, again much better defender. 1974 Bob Lanier was +148 and his teammates were -112, and 1976 he was +177 and his teammates were -135; he too was a much better passer (and more arguably defender). What does any of this tell us?????
i don't know what moses was doing on offense, but he was somehow producing
He was scoring effectively, attracting the defence’s attention, cleaning up some misses, and playing heavy minutes. He was a good offensive player and an all-time offensive centre/big, if (well) shy of Shaq and Jokic and Kareem and Dirk.
like i just don't see how 2007 steve nash is supposed to supplant 1983 moses malone in nba history.
How does any non-title winning MVP season supplant title-winning ones “in NBA history”? Hell, how many of those supplant title-winners period?? What defines 1989 and 1990 “in NBA history” more: Magic’s MVPs, or the Bad Boys’ titles? Why would this be the standard?
Although for what it is worth, Nash certainly revolutionised the development of the NBA to an extent Moses never did or could.
