New Yahoo article questioning the validity of ‘88 MJ’s DPOY

[Special_Puppy]

I do think its notable that the Bulls defense in 1988 was notable better than the surrounding years. Any ideas of what the cause of that was if not Jordan trying extra hard on defense that year?

[AEnigma]

I do think its notable that the Bulls defense in 1988 was notable better than the surrounding years. Any ideas of what the cause of that was if not Jordan trying extra hard on defense that year?

Going to hazard a guess and say there was probably some effect to Grant and Pippen being added to the team. Their front court rotation was Brad Sellers (playing down a position) or Pippen at small forward, and then two of Oakley, Corzine, and Grant at power forward and centre. Even with two rookies, that is a stout defensive group.

[lessthanjake]

This sort of thing isn’t much of a surprise, and likely did help him with DPOY, in an era where DPOY votes were focused on steals and blocks more than they are now. It’s interesting, but I don’t personally find it all that materially meaningful in terms of assessing Jordan himself. However, that’s mostly because I was already internalizing the idea that steals and blocks were overly emphasized in DPOY voting back then and that that was a significant reason Jordan got DPOY that year. The idea that the overemphasized thing might’ve also been inaccurate is interesting, but doesn’t really move much of a needle for me, because I was already essentially operating on a premise that Jordan got DPOY that year in significant part due to stats that didn’t *really* provide a good rationale for it on their own. Which isn’t to say that Jordan wasn’t a great defender. He definitely was. It’s just that we kind of already knew in retrospect that DPOY voters were overly-focused on not-very-telling data. The data being fudged makes that even worse, but it’s just a matter of degree.

One thing I will note, though, is that the guy who got 2nd in DPOY voting that year (Mark Eaton) is up there with the 2nd biggest home-road split in “stocks” when he got his DPOY the next year, and Eaton’s home-road split in 1988 would’ve been one of the highest too. So I think it’s fair to say that Jordan’s biggest competition for the award was quite likely getting plenty of his own home-cooking. The article also kind of glosses over the fact that a big part of what went into Jordan getting DPOY was not just the individual stats, but the fact that his team gave up easily the fewest points in the league (which people focused on back then instead of on defensive rating, which was to the Bulls’ benefit since they had a very low pace). It was a combination of the two. Jordan also won fairly easily, with 2nd place not being particularly close. So I find it quite plausible that Jordan could’ve still won DPOY that year even if no one was getting fudged home stats, since he’d still have been a guy with lots of steals and blocks on easily the #1 scoring defense in the league. And that’s what voters at the time would’ve been primarily thinking about. Of course, even if that were the case, I tend to think that that rationale would’ve been a bit unsophisticated and therefore not something we should put too much independent weight on anyways. But that’s something I thought about it before reading this article (which, again, is why this article doesn’t substantively move the needle much for me).

[AEnigma]

The article had an entire section on exactly that.

In Game 1, the Pistons shut down the Bulls, winning handily 93-82. Jordan tallied 29 points, 11 rebounds and six assists. However, the defensive columns were noticeably bare. Jordan didn’t register a single steal the entire game, the first time in over a month he didn’t come up with a theft. The game, it should be noted, was played in Detroit.

The Bulls and Pistons split the next two games. Then, before Game 4, with the Pistons up 2-1, Jordan gathered with NBA officials at halfcourt for a momentous occasion in front of the raucous Chicago crowd. Jordan was being presented with the Defensive Player of the Year award, the first of his career and a crowning achievement for the scoring phenom.

After the ceremony in Game 4, however, it was the Pistons who put on a show on the defensive end, looking every bit the superior defensive team, holding the Bulls without a field goal in the final five minutes of the game. It was a devastating loss for the Bulls, getting outscored 96-77 on their home floor, despite Jordan’s six steals.

The next day, a bold headline blared atop the sports section of the Detroit Free Press: “PISTONS NOT TRICKED BY THE BULLS’ NUMBERS.” In the story, columnist Charlie Vincent wrote: “And that gurgling sound you heard coming from your TV set was not the Bulls’ choking. It was the Pistons’ strangling them to within one loss of elimination.”

Vincent also took issue with Jordan’s coronation as the Defensive Player of the Year, arguing that the Bulls’ defensive standing was all smoke and mirrors, and Jordan didn’t deserve the league’s top defensive award. The loudest crusader was none other than Laimbeer, the Pistons’ center, who was ahead of his time in his discerning analysis.

Laimbeer argued for a nuanced approach to the Bulls’ stats, pointing out that the Bulls’ slow offensive pace artificially depressed the Bulls’ opponent scoring averages. Propping up Jordan’s candidacy, in Laimbeer’s view, was the fact that the Bulls allowed an NBA-low 101.6 points per game.

“Being the best defensive team,” Laimbeer said, “doesn’t mean they have the best defensive team.”

Laimbeer wasn’t moved by the Bulls’ first-ranked defense because he found the per-game numbers to be misleading. In a way, Laimbeer had unknowingly foretold the impending stats revolution that would take place across the sport, arguing for per-possession stats rather than ones that were influenced by slow offenses. (Indeed, the Bulls’ top ranking in traditional points per game would slide to third in possession-based Defensive Rating, slotting behind the Utah Jazz and Laimbeer’s Pistons, according to Basketball Reference.)

Laimbeer simply wasn’t buying the Bulls’ lowest opponent scoring average as a proxy for defense.

“It just means the other team scored less points,” Laimbeer told the Free Press. “The Bulls run plays for Jordan and they take time to set them up, so that lowers the number of points scored. The best defensive teams are, oh, Boston is pretty good and Los Angeles and us when we play like we have the past two days.”

Three days later, Jordan and the Bulls were eliminated from the playoffs in Detroit, losing the series 4-1.

Jordan’s marks in the 1987-88 postseason: 3.8 steals and 1.5 blocks at home; 1.8 steals and 0.8 on the road.

[lessthanjake]

The article had an entire section on exactly that.

Yes, I know. But the article primarily emphasizes the “stocks” stats as being Jordan’s case for the award at the time (which leads to the article’s general thesis that those stats being fudged calls into question whether he would’ve gotten the award fair and square), when his case was those stats combined with the Bulls having easily the #1 scoring defense. As the article mentions, we now know that the #1 scoring defense wasn’t really the best defense, since they were aided in that regard by their low pace. But people at the time (aside from Bill Laimbeer apparently!) didn’t think about that, nor is that something that would be corrected by eliminating fudged stats. If no one’s home stats were fudged, it seems like Jordan’s individual stats perhaps would’ve fallen the most (though others would’ve fallen too), but he’d still have been a guy with a whole lot of “stocks” on the #1 scoring defense, and that’s what the pretty-unsophisticated voters of the time would’ve been thinking about. Combined with the fact that he won fairly easily (and that the guy who was 2nd in voting seems quite likely to get downgraded a good bit by eliminating home stat fudging too), I think it’s quite plausible Jordan would’ve won DPOY in a world without any home-cooking. But that conclusion is also in large part a function of me taking as given the fact that voters were focused on unsophisticated stuff (i.e. overly emphasizing defensive box stats and not adjusting team defense for pace). I think if we assume voters were as sophisticated as today and had all the types of data we have today, then Jordan likely would not have won the award (subject, of course, to whether the newer types of data said some really great stuff about Jordan’s defense, which is something we can’t really know). However, if we assume voters remained as unsophisticated as they were, but we simply eliminated home-cooking of stats for everyone, I think there’s a good shot Jordan still wins the award. I also think it’s not all that important either way, since the votes resulting from an unsophisticated process aren’t overly meaningful. And we knew before reading this article that DPOY votes back then were based on unsophisticated analysis.

[Special_Puppy]

I do think its notable that the Bulls defense in 1988 was notable better than the surrounding years. Any ideas of what the cause of that was if not Jordan trying extra hard on defense that year?

Going to hazard a guess and say there was probably some effect to Grant and Pippen being added to the team. Their front court rotation was Brad Sellers (playing down a position) or Pippen at small forward, and then two of Oakley, Corzine, and Grant at power forward and centre. Even with two rookies, that is a stout defensive group.

1988 Bulls were significantly better on defense than the 1989 Bulls too though

[parapooper]

Also pretty interesting how obsessed Jordan was with stats and their importance to narrative/perception, how closely he worked with his home score keeper and how he never made an all-defensive team until his 1988 media campaign aided by fake stats from his guy which gave him DPOY, a defensive reputation and 1st team all-defense for the rest of his Bulls-career

That being said, RAPM data did confirm MJ was a great defender even in his later years.
Just the whole argument from who has more DPOYs/all-def teams is pretty idiotic since it's mostly based on reputation and opinions of media people with no brains or integrity

[penbeast0]

Not sure why this is a surprise to anyone.

Stats crews have been inflating the stats of home team players - and also deflating the stats of away team players - since stats crews have existed. Especially on inconsequential statistics like assists, steals, or blocks, where the stats themselves do not affect the outcome of the game.

This is true, there been a number of things written about Stockton and assists for example, but its the degree of the discrepancy that's shocking here. This isn't like 10 or even 20% which you can sort of gloss over, 82% is completely absurd and a historic outlier.

The Stockton assist thing, while real, is overrated. Magic Johnson, for one, got more homer assists as a percentage of his totals than Stockton. The exception was Steve Nash didn't seem to benefit as much from his scorers as the other big assist guys of the era if I remember right.

My favorite home/away stat was one that Harvey Pollack used to keep until the NBA ordered him to quit publishing it. He used to keep track of fouls called against the home team v. fouls called against the away team by referee and there was definitely a strong bias for almost every referee (the exception being Mendy Rudolph who actually called slightly more fouls on the home team). You can see why the NBA wanted that covered up.

[OhayoKD]

I do think its notable that the Bulls defense in 1988 was notable better than the surrounding years. Any ideas of what the cause of that was if not Jordan trying extra hard on defense that year?

Going to hazard a guess and say there was probably some effect to Grant and Pippen being added to the team. Their front court rotation was Brad Sellers (playing down a position) or Pippen at small forward, and then two of Oakley, Corzine, and Grant at power forward and centre. Even with two rookies, that is a stout defensive group.

1988 Bulls were significantly better on defense than the 1989 Bulls too though

I mean, they lost their best defender. Improved a bit as a playoff defense fwiw (Mark price injury probably helped)

[OhayoKD]

Also pretty interesting how obsessed Jordan was with stats and their importance to narrative/perception, how closely he worked with his home score keeper and how he never made an all-defensive team until his 1988 media campaign aided by fake stats from his guy which gave him DPOY, a defensive reputation and 1st team all-defense for the rest of his Bulls-career

This was always obvious for people who paid attention. "Biggest drive to win" was always revisionist nonsense:

In general, I tried to give Michael room to figure out how to integrate his personal ambitions with those of the team. “Phil knew that winning the scoring title was important to me,”

According to one official, Hughes was explicitly told by Jordan to get him the ball if he wanted to play. When Hughes began passing it to Stackhouse as much as to Jordan, he was soon benched. Point guard Tyronn Lue, the official said, obliged and began finding Jordan every time he played. ''He was scared to death of what would happen to him in his career if he didn't,'' the player said of Lue. ''He was always looking at the bench at Michael.''

Late last fall, Richard Hamilton and Jordan got into an ugly shouting match. The two officials said it began when Hamilton told Jordan he was tired of being a ''Jordannaire,'' the term used for Jordan's role players in Chicago. ''Rip was a young, brash guy who threatened the idea of Michael being the guy here,'' the official said.

And things were still being run through Michael Jordan. And I think Doug Collins – I love Doug. But I think that was an opportunity for him to make up for some ill moments that they may have had back in Chicago. So, pretty much everything that Michael wanted to do. We got off to a pretty good start, and then I think he didn’t like the way the offense was running, because it was running a little bit more through me. He wanted to get a little more isolations on the post, of course, so we had more isolations for him on the post.

During breaks in games, Jordan has been wandering over to the scorer's table to get updates on how many rebounds, assists and points he needs to fill his three double-figure quotas. "The guys at the scorer's desk let me know what I need," he said. "They tell me, 'You need three assists; you need two rebounds."'

Jordan also has been double-checking the figures with Chicago assistants. "They keep me in tune," he said. "They keep reminding me when I come back to the huddle, how much I need."

Last Sunday, at home against New Jersey, the 10th assist was Jordan's final goal."I knew I had nine assists," he said, "and I looked at (forward) Brad (Sellers), and said, 'Brad, can I count on you for my 10th?' And he said, 'yeah' and hit a jumper from the baseline."The push for the elusive triple-double is part of Jordan's push for greater respect."If the way I'm playing now doesn't convince them I'm a complete player," he said, "then nothing will."

That being said, RAPM data did confirm MJ was a great defender even in his later years.
Just the whole argument from who has more DPOYs/all-def teams is pretty idiotic since it's mostly based on reputation and opinions of media people with no brains or integrity

Yet over whole games and seasons the bulls barely improved with him.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Hopefully AI starts to merge into analytics so we can finally shed real light into actual player impact

And if AI agrees with many of the current analytic models? Are you going to change your tune, or keep playing the same broken chords?

Absolutely. That would be actual evidence. An AI that scanned old games would be ideal, but not sure how far back that would work, and obviously the camera only catches so much. But the ability to both draw out new practical metrics, and to apply them evenly is what I think we will see from AI in the near future.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Lebron's stats are more juiced than anyone's in NBA history, let's be real. Like he had teammates literally guiding rebounds into his hands. So the article is misguided trying to discredit MJ's resume in regards to that debate.

As for MJ's DPOY, it's was deserved. Perimeter defense is vastly underrated since the +/- gurus deemed it not important. MJ was way more impactful on defense than Rudy G has every been in practical terms.

Hopefully AI starts to merge into analytics so we can finally shed real light into actual player impact

Was MJ a better defender than Hakeem Olajuwon in 1988?

Yes, as were a few others that season too

[ronnymac2]

Obviously MJ didn't "deserve" the DPOY, but what is the point of somebody in the media writing this article? Do they think they're unsealing some hidden knowledge or wisdom about how this all works?

MJ dropped 63 against the GOAT team in 1986 and followed that up with a scoring title and an electric style of play. Getting him the DPOY was in everybody's best interest. The writer of the article may get an ego boost from telling everybody how super smart and morally solid they are, but I'm sure their Journalism 301 professor who was an actual sports reporter in the 1980s is shaking their head right now.

And at wanting AI to play a part in analytics and analysis.

[jalengreen]

Obviously MJ didn't "deserve" the DPOY, but what is the point of somebody in the media writing this article? Do they think they're unsealing some hidden knowledge or wisdom about how this all works?

MJ dropped 63 against the GOAT team in 1986 and followed that up with a scoring title and an electric style of play. Getting him the DPOY was in everybody's best interest. The writer of the article may get an ego boost from telling everybody how super smart and morally solid they are, but I'm sure their Journalism 301 professor who was an actual sports reporter in the 1980s is shaking their head right now.

And at wanting AI to play a part in analytics and analysis.

I thought it was a cool article and a nice example of data journalism. Yes, I think it unveiled information that a lot of people were not aware of.

[ronnymac2]

Obviously MJ didn't "deserve" the DPOY, but what is the point of somebody in the media writing this article? Do they think they're unsealing some hidden knowledge or wisdom about how this all works?

MJ dropped 63 against the GOAT team in 1986 and followed that up with a scoring title and an electric style of play. Getting him the DPOY was in everybody's best interest. The writer of the article may get an ego boost from telling everybody how super smart and morally solid they are, but I'm sure their Journalism 301 professor who was an actual sports reporter in the 1980s is shaking their head right now.

And at wanting AI to play a part in analytics and analysis.

I thought it was a cool article and a nice example of data journalism. Yes, I think it unveiled information that a lot of people were not aware of.

I personally also think the content itself was very cool. And I don't think a lot of people knew about that data. As a matter of fact, I think this forum is actually a far more appropriate place for this kind of information to be placed in and studied than on a media publication's site.

As far as "data journalism"...well, it relates to what I said about AI in analytics/analysis...I think those are horrible mistakes to make. The objective truth could do much harm to NBA fandom. None of this is designed for cold rationality. Too much data journalism and there won't be a need for that reporter's job.

[OhayoKD]

Obviously MJ didn't "deserve" the DPOY, but what is the point of somebody in the media writing this article? Do they think they're unsealing some hidden knowledge or wisdom about how this all works?

MJ dropped 63 against the GOAT team in 1986 and followed that up with a scoring title and an electric style of play. Getting him the DPOY was in everybody's best interest. The writer of the article may get an ego boost from telling everybody how super smart and morally solid they are, but I'm sure their Journalism 301 professor who was an actual sports reporter in the 1980s is shaking their head right now.

And at wanting AI to play a part in analytics and analysis.

I thought it was a cool article and a nice example of data journalism. Yes, I think it unveiled information that a lot of people were not aware of.

I personally also think the content itself was very cool. And I don't think a lot of people knew about that data. As a matter of fact, I think this forum is actually a far more appropriate place for this kind of information to be placed in and studied than on a media publication's site.

As far as "data journalism"...well, it relates to what I said about AI in analytics/analysis...I think those are horrible mistakes to make. The objective truth could do much harm to NBA fandom. None of this is designed for cold rationality. Too much data journalism and there won't be a need for that reporter's job.

Jordan's mythology has already done much harm to NBA fandom. Not sure what the point of keeping it around is

[ronnymac2]

Jordan's mythology has already done much harm to NBA fandom. Not sure what the point of keeping it around is

Jordan's mythology has done harm to people's ideas of what a leader is supposed to be, even in non-sports contexts. It's done harm to athletes who think Gatorade is always good. It's contributed to poor people harming one another over items they shouldn't purchase anyway.

But NBA fandom exploded because of the guy. He IS the blueprint.

[OhayoKD]

Jordan's mythology has already done much harm to NBA fandom. Not sure what the point of keeping it around is

Jordan's mythology has done harm to people's ideas of what a leader is supposed to be, even in non-sports contexts. It's done harm to athletes who think Gatorade is always good. It's contributed to poor people harming one another over items they shouldn't purchase anyway.

But NBA fandom exploded because of the guy. He IS the blueprint.

You can argue for that Jordan being propped over russell and everyone at the time he played was beneficial. But not moving on and crowning the new better thing like soccer did with messi and baseball has done with shohei has capped the long-term potential of the league.

[homecourtloss]

Very interesting article. The massive home/road statistical split is one thing on its own, but not necessarily conclusive proof of any faulty statkeeping. But the discrepancy between live-ball turnovers and steals is pretty damning.

The incongruent turnover/steal columns presented a glaring red flag. In the other five games we watched, the live-ball turnovers and steals did not add up, either. In the Detroit game, eight Chicago steals on six Detroit live-ball turnovers. In the Denver game, 13 Chicago steals on just seven Denver live-ball turnovers. Again and again, the official steal counts were routinely outpacing the possible number of steal opportunities. Something was amiss.

All in all, by our count, the box score showed 59 steals on 41 live-ball turnovers, resulting in a whopping 18 excess steals.

Who benefited from all those extra steals? We brought our attention to Jordan’s accounting. In the six games, the box scores indicated that Jordan’s total steal count was 28. After comparing our notes from the film study, we each counted 12 steals. An astounding difference of 16 excess steals. Almost every excess steal was being allocated to Jordan.

Funny story: when I was doing some tracking of film for +/- purposes, I had made a note about this but felt it would be too cumbersome to put together and had forgotten about this.

In any case, there are plenty of other reasons already articulated on this board as to why Jordan shouldn’t have been DPOY in 1988 or anywhere close to it.

[homecourtloss]

Hopefully AI starts to merge into analytics so we can finally shed real light into actual player impact

And if AI agrees with many of the current analytic models? Are you going to change your tune, or keep playing the same broken chords?

int main() {
string ai_opinion;

cout << "AI's opinion on LeBron (enter 'good' or 'not good'): ";
cin >> ai_opinion;

if (ai_opinion == "not good") {
cout << "I agree with AI that LeBron isn't that good." << endl;
} else if (ai_opinion == "good") {
cout << "I disagree with AI that LeBron is good." << endl;
} else {
cout << "Invalid opinion. Please enter 'good' or 'not good'." << endl;
}

return 0;
}