RealGM

Given we're planning to start dual-finals tracking for 86 Hakeem and Bird, I figured I may as well checkout sans 86 boston writeup to see what I could find on both of these star's respective teams. Was not expecting to find much on the Rockets(their regular season put them a bit short of the top 100) and then...

For context, the 2000 Lakers, boosted significantly via scaling from the duncan-less spurs, posted a psrs of +7.8. Hakeem's Rockets topped that through each of the first three rounds(including a matchup against the mid-dynasty champs).

And then we get to the finals where, by Sansteere's process, Hakeem's Rockets graded out at +6.3. For reference that is a better statistical performance than

-> The 88, 89, or 90 Bulls vs the Pistons(peaking at +5.5)
-> The 2000 Lakers vs the Pacers(+2.3)
-> The 1993 Bulls vs the Suns(+4.4)
-> the 2006 Heat against the Pacers (+3.5)

And that is the worst performance of this run by far facing a much better opponent who elevated significantly in the playoffs:

There's context here both ways.

On one hand, the Bucks best player missed a game and was hobbled throughout.
On the other, the Bulls were near .500 with Jordan in the lineup in 86

Nonetheless we see that Hakeem's Rockets are performing vastly better than everyone here via MOV(as well as picking up the most wins) including two good teams.

While I haven't done the calculations(for some of these teams there is no 4-series srs), given that the Rockets are beating all these teams comfortably on available series to series comparisons(excepting the 1993 Bulls), I would be surprised if they didn't end up grading out as having had a statically better postseason by all the listed teams(with the possible exception of +10 psrs 1993 Chicago) by a comfortable margin. And that is despite facing, not one, but two championship-level opponents, one of whom are largely considered one of the 10 best 1-year teams ever, and the other who was in the midst of a dynasty.

Even by RS SRS they are on par with 89/90 Chicago who by most are considered legitimate contenders(the latter being considered legitimately championship-level by some).

Yet, perhaps as a byproduct of them breaking down the next-year, neither 86 Houston or Hakeem is talked about these teams(or their superstars) the same way. But by the numbers, it seems the Rockets were not simply a one-series wonder. Rather, they were a legitimate threat all playoffs, and perhaps a worthy champion in many other years. Maybe if they'd kept all their peices healthy(and coke-free)in 87 and 88 we'd be talking about this team very differently...

OhayoKD wrote:-> The 88, 89, or 90 Bulls vs the Pistons(peaking at +5.5)
-> The 2000 Lakers vs the Pacers(+2.3)
-> The 1993 Bulls vs the Suns(+4.4)
-> the 2006 Heat against the Pacers (+3.5)

Interesting. Means 86 Hakeem could compare very favorably to and might be better than 90 MJ or 00 Shaq.

One thing not normally connotated with Dream was that, like many young athletic bigs, early on he was an outstanding rebounder. By his "peak" in '93 time and a propensity for fadeaways had already taken away some of it but he led the league in offensive rebounds as a rookie ('85) and total rebounds in '89 and '90. His offensive rebounding was also noteworthy in the '86 playoffs in question. Though no Moses it is perhaps an understated part of young Dream's game. Sometimes I think Hakeem was one of those players who is simply too great at too many things to hold it all in your mind at the same time. The aforementioned Larry Bird is similarly overlooked as one of the few players who put up occasionally eye-popping statlines in simultaneous blocks and steals like Dream

It’s possible the 1986 Rockets were really good. Their playoff results were good.

The Kings were bad, but the Rockets destroyed them (+15.3 net rating in a sweep). They did get taken to 6 games by the Nuggets—who were a mediocre team—but the +8.3 net rating is indicative of a substantially better team. So I’d say the first two rounds were consistent with them being a really good team, though there’s not *that* much we can glean from early-round series like these.

Where it, of course, gets very impressive is beating the Lakers pretty easily. The series was closer than the 5 games would suggest (only a +3.6 net rating), but three of the Rockets’ wins were by double digits, so it also wasn’t hugely close. And that was not even a down year for the Lakers (for instance, it was their 2nd highest regular season SRS in the Magic era). So that was very impressive and was indicative of the Rockets being really good.

Then we get to the Celtics series in the Finals. It was not particularly close, but wasn’t a total blowout—with the Rockets losing in 6 games with a -6.4 net rating. And this was to a team in the 1986 Celtics that had dominated the regular season and steamrolled the rest of the playoffs and is a competitor for being the GOAT team (though I personally think the 2017 Warriors, 1996 Bulls, and 1971 Bucks are definitely above them). I wouldn’t say this series reflects super well on the Rockets or anything—after all, they lost and it wasn’t super close. But I think it reflects fine on them.

So, going by their playoff performance, I think we’d think the 1986 Rockets were actually a really good team. Not a historically great team, but a really good one (i.e. one that was playing at a level that could’ve won a title if they’d hit a less good finals opponent). However, a playoff run is very small sample size. Those Rockets also had just a 2.10 SRS (and while Hakeem missed 14 games, they didn’t do badly in the games he missed so that number would not be much better in games Hakeem played). And, meanwhile, the Rockets also weren’t very good in the surrounding years, being mediocre in both regular season and playoffs.

So, overall, I’d say they were a decent team that clearly hit a patch of good form in the playoffs (and some luck, such as the Sampson shot to down the Lakers), such that in the playoffs they were at least briefly legitimately really good.

I think it's more relevant in terms of valuing Hakeem in the 86-92 years which many tend to sweep under the rug regarding the level of player he was. He came reasonably close to leading a team to a title in year 2 while having great playoff series and from 87-92 also had some of the best playoff series of any player in that time frame. Which is why I think we can recognize that Hakeem did improve in many ways from 86 to 93 but he was still one of the best players to have in the the years before that and capable of winning a title with the right pieces around him.

ceiling raiser wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:-> The 88, 89, or 90 Bulls vs the Pistons(peaking at +5.5)
-> The 2000 Lakers vs the Pacers(+2.3)
-> The 1993 Bulls vs the Suns(+4.4)
-> the 2006 Heat against the Pacers (+3.5)

Interesting. Means 86 Hakeem could compare very favorably to and might be better than 90 MJ or 00 Shaq.

Very interesting. I’ve always felt that 1990 Jordan/Bulls didn’t get enough discussion due to what happened afterwards. You had basically the same Jordan in 1991 (might be arguments about some things he did better in 91), but 1990 Jordan was better than later versions, played every game and 39 minutes a game and the team had no injuries….and a 2.74 SRS. A healthy 1994 team was at +4.7. It’s interesting for sure

homecourtloss wrote:
Very interesting. I’ve always felt that 1990 Jordan/Bulls didn’t get enough discussion due to what happened afterwards. You had basically the same Jordan in 1991 (might be arguments about some things he did better in 91), but 1990 Jordan was better than later versions, played every game and 39 minutes a game and the team had no injuries….and a 2.74 SRS. A healthy 1994 team was at +4.7. It’s interesting for sure

I generally speaking almost always see 90&91 put as peak MJ years though. I think it also helped that he got more experience playing in the triangle after 91 so whether you want to chalk it up as him improving or just gaining better mastery of the system he played in I think he had certain advantages for his team's success(as it did for Pippen/Grant).

homecourtloss wrote:

ceiling raiser wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:-> The 88, 89, or 90 Bulls vs the Pistons(peaking at +5.5)
-> The 2000 Lakers vs the Pacers(+2.3)
-> The 1993 Bulls vs the Suns(+4.4)
-> the 2006 Heat against the Pacers (+3.5)

Interesting. Means 86 Hakeem could compare very favorably to and might be better than 90 MJ or 00 Shaq.

Very interesting. I’ve always felt that 1990 Jordan/Bulls didn’t get enough discussion due to what happened afterwards. You had basically the same Jordan in 1991 (might be arguments about some things he did better in 91), but 1990 Jordan was better than later versions, played every game and 39 minutes a game and the team had no injuries….and a 2.74 SRS. A healthy 1994 team was at +4.7. It’s interesting for sure

Seems like a pretty textbook example of a team getting used to a new system over the course of a season. This was Phil Jackson’s first year there. I don’t have SRS numbers throughout the year (though I think others have posted them before for this exact season), but the Bulls started the season 29-20 and then finished it an extremely strong 26-7, followed by a strong playoff run where they lost a very close conference finals to the eventual champion (who didn’t drop more than a game to anyone else). There’s a good argument that by the end of the year the Bulls were neck and neck with the Pistons for being the league’s best teams. So they may have started slow—for understandable reasons, with a new coach and new offensive system—but by the end of the year they were very clearly better than the 1994 Bulls IMO.

EDIT: Did some calculations and if you look at the 1990 Bulls SRS in the last 33 games of the regular season and then the playoffs (so the last 49 total games they played in a 99-game year), they had a 5.59 SRS.

Cavsfansince84 wrote:

homecourtloss wrote:
Very interesting. I’ve always felt that 1990 Jordan/Bulls didn’t get enough discussion due to what happened afterwards. You had basically the same Jordan in 1991 (might be arguments about some things he did better in 91), but 1990 Jordan was better than later versions, played every game and 39 minutes a game and the team had no injuries….and a 2.74 SRS. A healthy 1994 team was at +4.7. It’s interesting for sure

I generally speaking almost always see 90&91 put as peak MJ years though. I think it also helped that he got more experience playing in the triangle after 91 so whether you want to chalk it up as him improving or just gaining better mastery of the system he played in I think he had certain advantages for his team's success(as it did for Pippen/Grant).

well according to dem numbers the rox were better

didnt mj have more help? wouldnt that mean hakeem had better impact than peeak MJ at 22?

damn. ppl act like mj is 90's bron, but he was probs just 90's steph

and we aint even gotten to magic...

lessthanjake wrote:

homecourtloss wrote:

ceiling raiser wrote:Interesting. Means 86 Hakeem could compare very favorably to and might be better than 90 MJ or 00 Shaq.

Very interesting. I’ve always felt that 1990 Jordan/Bulls didn’t get enough discussion due to what happened afterwards. You had basically the same Jordan in 1991 (might be arguments about some things he did better in 91), but 1990 Jordan was better than later versions, played every game and 39 minutes a game and the team had no injuries….and a 2.74 SRS. A healthy 1994 team was at +4.7. It’s interesting for sure

Seems like a pretty textbook example of a team getting used to a new system over the course of a season. This was Phil Jackson’s first year there. I don’t have SRS numbers throughout the year (though I think others have posted them before for this exact season), but the Bulls started the season 29-20 and then finished it an extremely strong 26-7, followed by a strong playoff run where they lost a very close conference finals to the eventual champion (who didn’t drop more than a game to anyone else). There’s a good argument that by the end of the year the Bulls were neck and neck with the Pistons for being the league’s best teams. So they may have started slow—for understandable reasons, with a new coach and new offensive system—but by the end of the year they were very clearly better than the 1994 Bulls IMO.

didnt the bulls play the knicks closer in 94 than the bulls played the pistons in 90? either way 86 rox seems better...

This whole extrapolation of very selective samples of WOWY type stats is getting out of control recently...

henshao wrote:One thing not normally connotated with Dream was that, like many young athletic bigs, early on he was an outstanding rebounder. By his "peak" in '93 time and a propensity for fadeaways had already taken away some of it but he led the league in offensive rebounds as a rookie ('85) and total rebounds in '89 and '90. His offensive rebounding was also noteworthy in the '86 playoffs in question. Though no Moses it is perhaps an understated part of young Dream's game. Sometimes I think Hakeem was one of those players who is simply too great at too many things to hold it all in your mind at the same time. The aforementioned Larry Bird is similarly overlooked as one of the few players who put up occasionally eye-popping statlines in simultaneous blocks and steals like Dream

nah bird probs the opposite. their no stat for not having handles or ben to slow to d up so his slashlines prob too high on him. apparently his creation stuff is actually pretty weak for all the all-time passer talk

ShaqAttac wrote:

lessthanjake wrote:

homecourtloss wrote:
Very interesting. I’ve always felt that 1990 Jordan/Bulls didn’t get enough discussion due to what happened afterwards. You had basically the same Jordan in 1991 (might be arguments about some things he did better in 91), but 1990 Jordan was better than later versions, played every game and 39 minutes a game and the team had no injuries….and a 2.74 SRS. A healthy 1994 team was at +4.7. It’s interesting for sure

Seems like a pretty textbook example of a team getting used to a new system over the course of a season. This was Phil Jackson’s first year there. I don’t have SRS numbers throughout the year (though I think others have posted them before for this exact season), but the Bulls started the season 29-20 and then finished it an extremely strong 26-7, followed by a strong playoff run where they lost a very close conference finals to the eventual champion (who didn’t drop more than a game to anyone else). There’s a good argument that by the end of the year the Bulls were neck and neck with the Pistons for being the league’s best teams. So they may have started slow—for understandable reasons, with a new coach and new offensive system—but by the end of the year they were very clearly better than the 1994 Bulls IMO.

didnt the bulls play the knicks closer in 94 than the bulls played the pistons in 90? either way 86 rox seems better...

Arguably the 1994 Bulls did play the Knicks closer than the 1990 Bulls played the Pistons (though both were 7-game series). But the 1994 Knicks proceeded to barely win the conference finals and then lose in the finals, while the 1990 Pistons steamrolled everyone else in the playoffs after having steamrolled everyone else in the playoffs the year before too. So I don’t see what kind of analogy you’re trying to draw. The 1990 Pistons were a substantially better team than the 1994 Knicks.

ShaqAttac wrote:

Cavsfansince84 wrote:

homecourtloss wrote:
Very interesting. I’ve always felt that 1990 Jordan/Bulls didn’t get enough discussion due to what happened afterwards. You had basically the same Jordan in 1991 (might be arguments about some things he did better in 91), but 1990 Jordan was better than later versions, played every game and 39 minutes a game and the team had no injuries….and a 2.74 SRS. A healthy 1994 team was at +4.7. It’s interesting for sure

I generally speaking almost always see 90&91 put as peak MJ years though. I think it also helped that he got more experience playing in the triangle after 91 so whether you want to chalk it up as him improving or just gaining better mastery of the system he played in I think he had certain advantages for his team's success(as it did for Pippen/Grant).

well according to dem numbers the rox were better

didnt mj have more help? wouldnt that mean hakeem had better impact than peeak MJ at 22?

damn. ppl act like mj is 90's bron, but he was probs just 90's steph

and we aint even gotten to magic...

We don’t have the complete data of course, but Moonbeam’s data seems to have Akeem/Hakeem basically by himself.

Moonbeam wrote:Here is a spreadsheet with up to 100 positive coefficients for each 5-year window for Ridge, Lasso, and ENet. I'll see if a spreadsheet with the full data is navigable and post separately if so.

Kind of amazing the heights he was able to reach, especially in the Lakers’ series playing with what he played with, i.e., many marginal impact players, low BBall IQ, personal off the court problems, players who underachieved (Sampson). Imagine younger Hakeem with better coaching, e.g., Phil Jackson, with a Horace Grant or Pippen or Draymond Green aboard.

70sFan wrote:This whole extrapolation of very selective samples of WOWY type stats is getting out of control recently...

Meh, Hakeem=peak MJ in 86 makes more sense to me than bird = strong MVP dropping 21 points and 4 assists(and don't forget that steph curry-like gravity ). At least Hakeem's support actually gets worse when his team fails to mimick their initial success...

OhayoKD wrote:

70sFan wrote:This whole extrapolation of very selective samples of WOWY type stats is getting out of control recently...

Meh, Hakeem=peak MJ in 86 makes more sense to me than bird = strong MVP dropping 21 points and 4 assists(and don't forget that steph curry-like gravity ). At least Hakeem's support actually gets worse when his team fails to mimick their initial success...

Yeah, because these are the only options available...

70sFan wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

70sFan wrote:This whole extrapolation of very selective samples of WOWY type stats is getting out of control recently...

Meh, Hakeem=peak MJ in 86 makes more sense to me than bird = strong MVP dropping 21 points and 4 assists(and don't forget that steph curry-like gravity ). At least Hakeem's support actually gets worse when his team fails to mimick their initial success...

Yeah, because these are the only options available...

i dont understand the prob. did mj have less help in 90?

ShaqAttac wrote:

70sFan wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:Meh, Hakeem=peak MJ in 86 makes more sense to me than bird = strong MVP dropping 21 points and 4 assists(and don't forget that steph curry-like gravity ). At least Hakeem's support actually gets worse when his team fails to mimick their initial success...

Yeah, because these are the only options available...

i dont understand the prob. did mj have less help in 90?

probably less help in the regular season. probably more help in the postseason

OhayoKD wrote:

ShaqAttac wrote:

70sFan wrote:Yeah, because these are the only options available...

i dont understand the prob. did mj have less help in 90?

probably less help in the regular season. probably more help in the postseason

so he had less help in the playoffs n led a better playoff team?

why cant he be better?

ShaqAttac wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

ShaqAttac wrote:i dont understand the prob. did mj have less help in 90?

probably less help in the regular season. probably more help in the postseason

so he had less help in the playoffs n led a better playoff team?

why cant he be better?

Because attributing small sample team results to a single player is ridiculous.