1989 vs. 2004 Pistons

[Owly]

I'd just add that until 1989 they only had 2 all-nba teams. So when a guy didn't make any all-nba teams, but he's getting MVP votes, that's a pretty good indicator they'd have made it with 3 teams, especially in Laimbeer's case when he's 12th place and the guys he's behind that year are Kareem and Moses. Like come on. There's only onea center slot.

Aguirre's 3 years he got MVP votes he ranked 11, 15 and 14; top 15 basically suggests with 3 all-nba teams you'd make it.

I feel pretty comfortable saying the Pistons had 5 all-nba calibre players in 89; Thomas, Dumars, Rodman, Laimbeer & Dantley/Aguirre.

I will say on the Aguirre front he was having a significantly down year even before the trade when one could talk about sacrificing numbers for the team. Not a full season sample, hard to know the long-term trajectory had he remained as the alpha but ... in Dallas he was 17.3 PER, .052 WS/48, -0.4 BPM (1.5 OBPM) which, apart from PER which was tie, are all career worst marks. And if Aguirre wasn't looking good in the boxscore stuff ... he wasn't regarded as a great intangibles or non-box guy. (It's kind of odd as he was coming off a season where he was as productive as he'd ever been (has a case for his best across the board composite season, narrowly his best WS/48 [.163, from .160 in '87] and BPM [3.8 from 3.7 in '84] though his PER had been bettered twice, particularly in '84).)

Also whilst MVP voting might suffice as a "least worst" measure for what people thought (and less position dependent than All-NBA) on a 5 person ballot we might be getting very little info the outer rankings so tied 15th with three others (so perhaps on average 16th or 15-17th) and 14th with four others (average 15.5th or 14th-17th) really only meant one 5th place voter in each instance ... neither is giving a lot of information.

[tmorgan]

I’ve said my peace and piece on this already.

As for outliers like Lanier and Thurmond, sure. Giving Laimbeer that much credit is a major stretch.

[Owly]

I’ve said my peace and piece on this already.

As for outliers like Lanier and Thurmond, sure. Giving Laimbeer that much credit is a major stretch.

If you don't want to pursue this more I'm not going to push it but to clarify this was about the position

You also don’t have all-nba talent if you never made all-nba

which the first sentence suggests you now acknowledge to be wrong. It was not about the precise position of Laimbeer within this scale.

Fwiw, I'm not clear in this context what "that much credit" would be (equals with Lanier and Thurmond [and Gilmore?], parity with some of the weaker All-NBA names mentioned, or some independent notion of your own of what All-NBA talent level means?) feel free to clarify, argue against the specifics of the other poster's claim or hold your silence.

[tmorgan]

I’ve said my peace and piece on this already.

As for outliers like Lanier and Thurmond, sure. Giving Laimbeer that much credit is a major stretch.

If you don't want to pursue this more I'm not going to push it but to clarify this was about the position

You also don’t have all-nba talent if you never made all-nba

which the first sentence suggests you now acknowledge to be wrong. It was not about the precise position of Laimbeer within this scale.

Fwiw, I'm not clear in this context what "that much credit" would be (equals with Lanier and Thurmond [and Gilmore?], parity with some of the weaker All-NBA names mentioned, or some independent notion of your own of what All-NBA talent level means?) feel free to clarify, argue against the specifics of the other poster's claim or hold your silence.

Don’t be a jerk. You can do better.

EDIT: and so can I.

I did argue against the specifics, at length. Above. I don’t just repeat myself as additional evidence. Our argument, which you jumped into, was partially about Laimbeer’s status as one of five all-nba caliber players on that Pistons team. Not everything is about you or your posts. If you want to jump in, sure, but it doesn’t automatically make you the center of attention.

Your contributions to the argument were worthy and useful. Your attitude in this last post is not.

[Owly]

I’ve said my peace and piece on this already.

As for outliers like Lanier and Thurmond, sure. Giving Laimbeer that much credit is a major stretch.

If you don't want to pursue this more I'm not going to push it but to clarify this was about the position

You also don’t have all-nba talent if you never made all-nba

which the first sentence suggests you now acknowledge to be wrong. It was not about the precise position of Laimbeer within this scale.

Fwiw, I'm not clear in this context what "that much credit" would be (equals with Lanier and Thurmond [and Gilmore?], parity with some of the weaker All-NBA names mentioned, or some independent notion of your own of what All-NBA talent level means?) feel free to clarify, argue against the specifics of the other poster's claim or hold your silence.

Don’t be a jerk. You can do better.

EDIT: and so can I.

I did argue against the specifics, at length. Above. I don’t just repeat myself as additional evidence. Our argument, which you jumped into, was partially about Laimbeer’s status as one of five all-nba caliber players on that Pistons team. Not everything is about you or your posts. If you want to jump in, sure, but it doesn’t automatically make you the center of attention.

Your contributions to the argument were worthy and useful. Your attitude in this last post is not.

Full disclosure I reported this post.
You should have if you had a problem.

My post was to clarify that my point did not assert a general position on Laimbeer. It did so in response to a post explicitly referencing only me, immediately followed with a position on "giving Laimbeer that much credit". The "that much" level was unclear (but immediately following references to elite centers) and in case the position was either held by you or promoted by your post that my argument was that Laimbeer was on Lanier's level it seemed worth clarifying that that was not the case.

[tmorgan]

Feel free to report. I find that laughable considering your language. The only reason I didn’t report you is that I don’t feel like wasting moderators’ time.

If I’m in the wrong, this clearly isn’t the right board for me — if someone can be as rude as you were and feel attacked in return, I’m good not being here.

[Owly]

Feel free to report. I find that laughable considering your language. The only reason I didn’t report you is that I don’t feel like wasting moderators’ time.

If I’m in the wrong, this clearly isn’t the right board for me — if someone can be as rude as you were and feel attacked in return, I’m good not being here.

I don't know what "language" you find "rude".

The only thing I can think of is saying that you acknowledged that your absolute statement was wrong. I assume that is what happened when you acknowledged that players can be of an all-NBA level without having been voted to that accolade.

To say "Don't be a jerk" isn't constructive (elements of the edited in clarification were) and is an attack. Not a big one but ...

[tmorgan]

I don't know what "language" you find "rude".

This doesn’t surprise me.

[lessthanjake]

I think this is a really interesting question. Very similar teams, in terms of being an incredibly good defensive powerhouse that did not have a superstar but did have a bunch of really good players.

I’m inclined to go with the 1989 Pistons.

The main reason I have for that is basically just looking at surrounding years to try to get a sense of how good the teams were in a larger sample size. Both teams were good in other years. But the 2004 Pistons went on to lose in a really close finals to a great team (in a 7-game series where they outscored the opposition) and then lose in the ECF (to a very good but not historically good Heat team). The 1989 Pistons went on to win a title with only 5 playoff losses the next year, and they had also lost a really close finals the prior year to a great team (in a 7-game series where they outscored the opposition). While they both had success in other years, the 1989 Pistons definitely had a bit more success, and that informs my view that they were probably better in 1989 than in 2004.

The other thing that informs my view is in-year playoff dominance. I don’t put a ton of stock on regular season numbers between these two teams, since the 1989 Pistons look stronger but the 2004 Pistons got a lot better in the middle of the season when they got Rasheed Wallace. But in the playoffs, the 1989 Pistons lost just 2 games, while the 2004 Pistons lost 7 games, and were taken to a game 7 against a 1.88 SRS team (albeit one that had been to the finals the two prior years, so perhaps a bit stronger than the SRS suggests).

Overall, it just feels to me like the 1989 Pistons were probably a bit stronger.

[tmorgan]

I agree that the Bad Boys were likely better than the Goin’ To Work squad.

However, despite my lifelong fanhood of Bill Laimbeer, I actually prefer the 2004 team. Most likely because it was the best “team”, in terms of being more than the sum of its parts, I’ve ever been a fan of. I’d like to say the best true team of any I’ve seen, but that’s probably taking it too far.

[Djoker]

The post above me is kind of where I stand on it as well. I'd lean towards the 1989 Pistons.

Either way I think the two teams are very different. The 2004 Pistons had a very heavy defensive identity with a solid case for the greatest defensive team ever (or at least since 1960's Celtics) but were very pedestrian on offense. The 1989 Pistons on the other hand were just very good defensively but also really good offensively.

Also worth noting that apart from the Bulls series, the Pistons beat the other teams in the postseason by 9.8 points/game and went 11-0. So they were fairly dominant themselves in the postseason. I think one post above claims that the 2004 Pistons were better in the playoffs and I'm not sure that's the case. Yes the 1989 Lakers were injured but the 2004 Lakers were as well (Payton) and had serious team issues and player drama (Kobe v Shaq and Kobe v Malone).

[trex_8063]

I don't know what "language" you find "rude".

This doesn’t surprise me.

Disengage, please.

[70sFan]

Also worth noting that apart from the Bulls series, the Pistons beat the other teams in the postseason by 9.8 points/game and went 11-0. So they were fairly dominant themselves in the postseason.

I don't think your conclusion is wrong, but it's also worth mentioning that the Bulls were the only healthy team that the Pistons faced in the playoffs.

[penbeast0]

Feel free to report. I find that laughable considering your language. The only reason I didn’t report you is that I don’t feel like wasting moderators’ time.

If I’m in the wrong, this clearly isn’t the right board for me — if someone can be as rude as you were and feel attacked in return, I’m good not being here.

Unfortunately, from what I can see you were indeed in the wrong. Owly was bringing up issues with your post, with the methodology and conclusions. You made it personal to him as a poster which is where the posts cross the line from allowed to a violation of the code of conduct. If you disagree with his basketball conclusions that is your right so long as it is civil; when you call him names that is not.

[tmorgan]

Feel free to report. I find that laughable considering your language. The only reason I didn’t report you is that I don’t feel like wasting moderators’ time.

If I’m in the wrong, this clearly isn’t the right board for me — if someone can be as rude as you were and feel attacked in return, I’m good not being here.

Unfortunately, from what I can see you were indeed in the wrong. Owly was bringing up issues with your post, with the methodology and conclusions. You made it personal to him as a poster which is where the posts cross the line from allowed to a violation of the code of conduct. If you disagree with his basketball conclusions that is your right so long as it is civil; when you call him names that is not.

I PM’d you about this. I don’t appreciate being backseat moderated (“hold your silence”) and I’m going to call it out. Further, being told to address the original poster’s comments — which I did, earlier, but felt no need to repeat arguments as he did — also irks me.

You’ve lost a (admittedly minor) PC poster. I don’t need this.

[Owly]

Feel free to report. I find that laughable considering your language. The only reason I didn’t report you is that I don’t feel like wasting moderators’ time.

If I’m in the wrong, this clearly isn’t the right board for me — if someone can be as rude as you were and feel attacked in return, I’m good not being here.

Unfortunately, from what I can see you were indeed in the wrong. Owly was bringing up issues with your post, with the methodology and conclusions. You made it personal to him as a poster which is where the posts cross the line from allowed to a violation of the code of conduct. If you disagree with his basketball conclusions that is your right so long as it is civil; when you call him names that is not.

I PM’d you about this. I don’t appreciate being backseat moderated (“hold your silence”) and I’m going to call it out. Further, being told to address the original poster’s comments — which I did, earlier, but felt no need to repeat arguments as he did — also irks me.

You’ve lost a (admittedly minor) PC poster. I don’t need this.

Don't know if people want me to leave this alone but

"or hold your silence"

acknowledges a previously stated desire

I’ve said my peace and piece on this already.

that you might be done with this. You may not want to say more and so this is acknowledged. When I've said I'm done with a discussion I've recently had the suggestion that that meant I was seeking the last word - this is a forum so obviously that's something one obviously can't control and that kind of response can feel like baiting.

In
"feel free to clarify, argue against the specifics of the other poster's claim or hold your silence."
I acknowledge that you may want to respond to what I have to say, have the Laimbeer specific conversation with the poster or that nothing in this new post has overriden or changed your previously stated position that you have no more to add. There is no moderation involved.