Retro Player of the Year 1985-86 UPDATE — Hakeem Olajuwon

[AEnigma]

Wonder if that might have something to do with being a defence-first player.

[AEnigma]

Hello all. Going from no job to a 60 hour office job has obliterated my ability to stay awake after work so I've not participated much recently but I’ll chime in now if you’ll allow me. The stars have aligned to give me the minimum ATP required to function so I've pre-prepared a ballot for the 86 thread as I'm not sure if I'll be able to do it at the time. I’ll try and submit when the thread comes but in case I can’t please count this. I’ll also try to do other thread.

1. Magic

He lost in 5 yes, but he was the best player and I think his performance vs Houston is much better than people remember. Sampson and Hakeem just went crazy so his individual play was overshadowed.

2. Hakeem

Played great vs LA, outplayed Bird, and carried a playoff juggernaut as the best defender by far on a historically excellent postseason defense.

3. Mchale

He’s the best man defender, he’s the best rim protector, in the finals he was their best scorer, he’s their 2nd or 3rd best ball-handler, he their best self-creator, he’s their best or second best rebounder. For Bird to be better this year, I’d need to see him as an extreme playmaker.

4. Bird

Very controversial I know but I just don't think his play this year was up to par. Honestly shocked how little defenders seemed to care about him. I always knew his ball-handling was a weakness but holy ****. Most of those assists are just the same empty stat-padding KD was doing at GSW and so many open or single coverage looks because he’s being asked to so little before it’s time to score or assist. I think his efficiency that year is a bit of a mirage and now that he’s flat bad at defending I can’t really justify treating him as the best player this year.

5. Jordan

Outplays Bird, but he plays 30 games. It eez what it eez.

McBubbles, quote me if your vote changes or you otherwise want to post a new ballot. Wanted to post this early for the sake of the discussion.

On that note, for both personal reasons and because this seems like it will be a spirited thread, I will likely extend voting into Friday.

[Djoker]

Number 1 is Hakeem
By far better defender than anyone you’ll vote for as one, via paint defense, which is limiting the most efficient and used shot of the 80’s. If you look at how much shots he’s limiting and or negating, and combine that with the scoring level which is 27 a game on +3rTS, with decent playmaking, it’s a hard case against him. Bird’s not dragging in defenders as much as Hakeem is, and doesn’t pass out enough as he should, neither does Hakeem but regardless if you watch the games, Hakeem is still creating open shots and attacking of the close outs. Bird a lot of the time is off the ball, and his on ball duty is to score. If both create around the same, have the same volume of points, (Bird is 4%’s more efficient), but Hakeem has the far edge in defense, you don’t have Bird as the best. You just don’t.

Prime Hakeem was a decent playmaker. Early Hakeem most definitely was not. In fact, passing was Hakeem's biggest weakness and really capped his offensive impact. In addition, 1986 Hakeem while very good, also isn't at his best defensively.

With all that said, I'll probably still have him at #2 behind Bird.

[OhayoKD]

Number 1 is Hakeem
By far better defender than anyone you’ll vote for as one, via paint defense, which is limiting the most efficient and used shot of the 80’s. If you look at how much shots he’s limiting and or negating, and combine that with the scoring level which is 27 a game on +3rTS, with decent playmaking, it’s a hard case against him. Bird’s not dragging in defenders as much as Hakeem is, and doesn’t pass out enough as he should, neither does Hakeem but regardless if you watch the games, Hakeem is still creating open shots and attacking of the close outs. Bird a lot of the time is off the ball, and his on ball duty is to score. If both create around the same, have the same volume of points, (Bird is 4%’s more efficient), but Hakeem has the far edge in defense, you don’t have Bird as the best. You just don’t.

Prime Hakeem was a decent playmaker. Early Hakeem most definitely was not. In fact, passing was Hakeem's biggest weakness and really capped his offensive impact. 1986 Hakeem while very good also isn't at his best defensively.

With that said, I'll probably still have him at #2 behind Bird.

Not according to the tracking of the person you're quoting

Creations:
Hakeem 1986-1990: ~6
Bird 1984-1988: ~6
Jordan 1987-1993: ~10
Magic 1987-1991: ~16

All the reviewable tracking I've seen on the matter indicates Bird also is on the lower end of creation quality and Bird actually averages more turnovers this year.

It should go without saying, if they're in the same stratosphere in terms of their ability to create for others, the concept of Bird being better ceases being a serious one.

[Lebronnygoat]

Number 1 is Hakeem
By far better defender than anyone you’ll vote for as one, via paint defense, which is limiting the most efficient and used shot of the 80’s. If you look at how much shots he’s limiting and or negating, and combine that with the scoring level which is 27 a game on +3rTS, with decent playmaking, it’s a hard case against him. Bird’s not dragging in defenders as much as Hakeem is, and doesn’t pass out enough as he should, neither does Hakeem but regardless if you watch the games, Hakeem is still creating open shots and attacking of the close outs. Bird a lot of the time is off the ball, and his on ball duty is to score. If both create around the same, have the same volume of points, (Bird is 4%’s more efficient), but Hakeem has the far edge in defense, you don’t have Bird as the best. You just don’t.

Prime Hakeem was a decent playmaker. Early Hakeem most definitely was not. In fact, passing was Hakeem's biggest weakness and really capped his offensive impact. In addition, 1986 Hakeem while very good, also isn't at his best defensively.

With all that said, I'll probably still have him at #2 behind Bird.

Please watch Hakeem games, ENTIRELY. Look at how they’re guarding him once he catches the ball, I mean I’ve never seen someone front Hakeem so deep and leave the entry passer so open, maybe Shaq, idk about Kareem. And whenever Hakeem passes out, his entry passer (usually Mcray) is being contested right after bc he needs to be a step in to shoot a mid range bc he can’t shoot from range, AT ALL. In fact just finished watching a game from Hakeem, and he had created 6 open shots for his teammates.
https://youtu.be/Mk85BMB89-M?si=8GcvbzI-TllR6Ean
Mind you, he didn’t even play the whole game because of an ejection and fouls. If you were Hakeem, you probably wouldn’t pass much more than Hakeem did… and stop acting like Bird was creating so much advantages for his teammates either, because he wasn’t.

[Lebronnygoat]

Number 1 is Hakeem
By far better defender than anyone you’ll vote for as one, via paint defense, which is limiting the most efficient and used shot of the 80’s. If you look at how much shots he’s limiting and or negating, and combine that with the scoring level which is 27 a game on +3rTS, with decent playmaking, it’s a hard case against him. Bird’s not dragging in defenders as much as Hakeem is, and doesn’t pass out enough as he should, neither does Hakeem but regardless if you watch the games, Hakeem is still creating open shots and attacking of the close outs. Bird a lot of the time is off the ball, and his on ball duty is to score. If both create around the same, have the same volume of points, (Bird is 4%’s more efficient), but Hakeem has the far edge in defense, you don’t have Bird as the best. You just don’t.

Prime Hakeem was a decent playmaker. Early Hakeem most definitely was not. In fact, passing was Hakeem's biggest weakness and really capped his offensive impact. 1986 Hakeem while very good also isn't at his best defensively.

With that said, I'll probably still have him at #2 behind Bird.

Not according to the tracking of the person you're quoting

Creations:
Hakeem 1986-1990: ~6
Bird 1984-1988: ~6
Jordan 1987-1993: ~10
Magic 1987-1991: ~16

All the reviewable tracking I've seen on the matter indicates Bird also is on the lower end of creation quality and Bird actually averages more turnovers this year.

It should go without saying, if they're in the same stratosphere in terms of their ability to create for others, the concept of Bird being better ceases being a serious one.

I also refreshed my chrome when I had the timestamps written down in the YouTube comments, so I lost the exact clips bc my YouTube wasn’t loading. But I recorded Kareem having 15 creations, and Hakeem at 6 (1986, Game 5, LAL vs HOU).
https://youtu.be/Mk85BMB89-M?si=8GcvbzI-TllR6Ean
This shouldn’t undermine Hakeem as his team wasn’t weaponized with the same shooters as Kareem so he didn’t pass out as much. But 6 creations is actually considerable, 15 is elite. It’s a miracle to see bird create more than even 10 times.

[One_and_Done]

Wonder if that might have something to do with being a defence-first player.

I don’t think this is due to some weird bias against “offensive” players. Hakeem averaged more than Barkley in 87, more than Ewing in 89, about the same as Barkley in 90, more than Barkley in 93, etc, and was ranked below them in each instance. Hakeem didn’t even rank in 1992 when they missed the playoffs, and yes he only played 69 games but that didn’t stop D.Rob ranking 3rd with 68 games, Mark Price ranking 7th with 72, Brad Daughtery with 73, Charles with 75, etc. Even guys like Rodman, Schrempf, Mullin, Stockton, Danny Manning, etc, got votes this year.

In 1991 Hakeem ranked 18th, and it can’t be just because of his 56 games played because Bernard King only played 64 and was ahead of him, Bird with 60 games was 9th, Barkley with only 67 was 4th, I.Thomas with only 48 games played was 13th. Even his own team mate Kenny Smith ranked over him. As ridiculous as some of those names are, they do illustrate the point that Hakeem just wasn’t viewed as the top tier player people on here want to claim he was in hindsight.

[Lebronnygoat]

No one's saying defense is split 50% with offense, in fact, offense is more valuable usually. Floor game as in? Intangibles as in? Provide examples, and the examples you will provide, will either affect the court offensively, or defensively. Stop talking like big "analysts" on TV sport shows and brining up imaginary things.

I think its fair to say that things such as leadership and other qualities which could be viewed as intangibles are a real thing. To what degree they should be factored into a player's evaluation is another thing but they do have meaning in a team sport.

Well if “let’s play hard tonight” and giving a motivational speech is what makes something even close to considerable impact, then ya got me.

[AEnigma]

Wonder if that might have something to do with being a defence-first player.

I don’t think this is due to some weird bias against “offensive” players. Hakeem averaged more than Barkley in 87, O about the same as Barkley in 90, more than Barkley in 93, etc, and was ranked below them in each instance

Does that mean he was more of an offensive star? Does that mean he was an equivalent celebrity? Does that mean his team was better? Does that mean he played in a stronger media market? No? Weird!

more than Ewing in 89,

Same as above minus the offensive star part.

Hakeem didn’t even rank in 1992 when they missed the playoffs, and yes he only played 69 games but that didn’t stop D.Rob ranking 3rd with 68 games, Mark Price ranking 7th with 72, Brad Daughtery with 73, Charles with 75, etc. Even guys like Rodman, Schrempf, Mullin, Stockton, Danny Manning, etc, got votes this year.

Hilarious how you list a collection of players who all made the playoffs, won more, and with the exception of 1992 Robinson, played more.

In 1991 Hakeem ranked 18th, and it can’t be just because of his 56 games played because Bernard King only played 64 and was ahead of him, Bird with 60 games was 9th, Barkley with only 67 was 4th, I.Thomas with only 48 games played was 13th.

So four offensive stars, three of whom played more (and the other being the reigning Finals MVP).

Even his own team mate Kenny Smith ranked over him. As ridiculous as some of those names are, they do illustrate the point that Hakeem just wasn’t viewed as the top tier player people on here want to claim he was in hindsight.

It is funny, half the time you make these types of arguments, I end up wondering whether you are deliberately trying to set up a strawman for others to torch. When arguments in one direction are this poorly considered, it only ends up emphasising the strengths of the arguments going the other direction.

All-NBA voting had him as a top two centre five years straight (#1 for three straight), only disrupted when he missed a large chunk of the season/playoffs. But that is inconvenient to your narrative so characteristically it is thrown out. Just like how when it comes to MVP votes you dislike — 1969, 1973, 2001, 2008, 2011, 2017, etc. — you selectively throw those out too.

If this is all you can muster as a negative case, maybe Hakeem should be RPoY after all.

[AEnigma]

Defensive Player of the Year

1. Mark Eaton
2. Hakeem Olajuwon
3. Bill Walton

Hakeem is better than he was last year, but fourteen missed games holds him back from bridging the gap with Eaton, and I am reluctant to penalise Eaton too harshly for a four-game team underperformance against the Mavericks in the postseason.

And then Walton is, next to Woody Sauldsberry (remember him?), the only player I have ever felt provided enough defensive value per minute that he can crack the ballot despite playing less than half the game/season.

Where the heck did the ‘86 Celtics come from? It’s easy to paint them as simply the best team of a dynasty, that the Celtics were really good through the 80s and 1986 happened to be their best year. I don’t buy it. That argument fits more with the ‘85 and ‘87 Lakers. The Lakers were really good very consistently, and they happened to have two stronger years. The jumps up *to* those years weren’t that big, and the drops *from* those years weren’t that big either. But the Celtics? The ‘87 Celtics didn’t even make this list, the ‘84 Celtics were #50, the ‘85 Celtics were team #86 on this list. The best other Bird-era Celtics team here is the ‘81 version, which finished 46th. Contrast those (respectable teams, but nothing earth-shaking) to how freaking dominant the ‘86 Celtics were. 12th best regular season SRS ever, 7th best postseason SRS ever? That’s an insane leap.

Well, they acquired Bill Walton, so that’s definitely a thing. K.C. Jones was the coach for the whole stretch, so coaching change doesn’t apply. And player development seems unlikely, since their core was all 28 or older except for Danny Ainge (26). But it’s weird to imagine that adding a player that only played 19 minutes a game (Walton) really transformed the team by that much. Great teams often get better suddenly, but they get worse more slowly. Some of these are driven by player loss, but many more are driven simply by aging, or a decreased effort. I know that the ‘87 Celtics lost Walton, but I can’t imagine that they gave decreased effort. And their core was all getting older . . . It keeps coming back to Walton. But it’s hard to imagine . . . Let’s start looking at some possible causes:

Was it the way they used Larry Bird? Bird’s usage dropped in the ‘86 Playoffs, but his efficiency exploded. Maybe other iterations of the Celtics relied on him too much? Let’s check the numbers (from ‘80 to ‘88, regular season to playoff change in usage / true shooting, not opponent adjusted):

1980: -0.1 / -1.8
1981: -1.1 / +1.6
1982: -3.3 / -6.5
1983: +0.8 / -6.1
1984: -0.8 / +6.6
1985: -1.7 / -4.4
1986: -4.3 / +3.7
1987: -1.6 / -2.6
1988: -4.3 / -6.6

The numbers don’t really back this up. If you’re looking for a year that Bird put the team on his back by taking more shots in the playoffs, keep looking. Bird’s usage never jumped by more than a percent, and more often dropped. His only two big jumps in efficiency were ‘84 and ‘86. On average his usage and shooting dropped by almost 2% each (remember, this isn’t opponent adjusted, so dropping by 1.8% shooting is still probably a drop, but smaller than you think). So giving Bird fewer shots doesn’t seem to help too much. So we can cross that off.

Let’s get more granular (different team metrics from ‘84-88, all measured from league average):

Offensive Rating: +3.3 | +4.9 | +4.6 | +5.2 | +7.4

Wow! ‘86 was actually a slightly down year for their offense; it kept getting better in the late 80s.

Offensive eFG%: +0.9% | +1.9% | +2.5% | +4.4% | +5.2%

Yup, definitely driven by shooting. Well, we know that McHale’s peak was around the later years of these five, so that could be part of it. How about passing (Percent of FGM assisted):

Regular Season Passing: 58.6% | 61.5% | 64.2% | 66.4% | 68.0%
Playoff Passing: 55.8% | 62.9% | 65.1% | 63.6% | 70.6%

Wow. That’s very resilient passing; most teams’ A/FGM drops in the postseason, some by a lot (5-6% isn’t crazy). But notice how this keeps going up through the years, as their offensive rating goes up. It’s not crazy that Bird’s passing was improving (cerebral players often improve past their athletic prime) but let’s keep looking . . .

Offensive Rebounding: +1.2% | -0.1% | -1.1% | -4.4% | -3.0%

Huh. The Celtics, despite being an obviously strong rebounding team (when Bird is your 3, you probably should be) they weren’t that good on the offensive glass.

Hey, wait a minute. Increased offensive efficiency, but dropping offensive rebounding, increasing A/FGM . . .

3PA/FGA: 3.2% | 4.2% | 5.4% | 8.0% | 10.2%
Rank in 3PA/FGA: 8th | 6th | 5th | 2nd | 1st

The Celtics’ offense had always shot a fair amount of threes, but by ‘87 it was becoming a major part of their offense. Three pointers are more assisted shots than two pointers, so that explains much of the A/FGM trend, and it also explains much of the drop in offensive rebounding while shooting and offensive efficiency improved. Don’t get it twisted; in ‘88 the league-leading Celtics were shooting only 8.6 threes a game. But it undoubtedly boosted their shooting and spacing more than the rest of the league, which counts. The scary thing about the ‘86 Celtics is that their offense probably could have been even better if they’d moved their playstyle forward several years . . .

That said, this doesn’t address the initial question. Nothing about that trend suggests how the ‘86 Celtics really jumped up in an unsustainable way. If anything, the ‘86 Celtics’ offense was a slightly down year for them; we can’t explain their year that way.

Defensive Efficiency: -3.2 | -1.6 | -4.6 | -1.5 | +1.4

Whoa. Well, pretty sure that’s it. Wait, what happened in ‘84? Well, first off, McHale was coming off the bench and Maxwell was starting. Gerald Henderson was starting and Ainge was coming off the bench. Bird was 27, DJ was 29 and Parish was 30. So the starters were still close to their athletic peaks, Ainge’s minutes were going to a better ball-hawk and McHale . . . I don’t know if him coming off the bench or not helped. In ‘85 all of the core get older, and we lose Maxwell and Henderson. And in ‘86 they get Walton and he magically stays healthy. Sure he’s only playing 19 minutes a night, but he’s the only major change. And the Celtics jump from being a good defense to being the best defense in the league. And is it that crazy? If a healthy Walton can swing a defense by 5 points a game over a season (hypothetical, but not unreasonable) then why can’t Walton swing a defense 3 points a game over a season playing 60% of those minutes? I don’t really see another explanation.

And in ‘87? Walton’s out for the year and their entire bench struggles. Here’s a breakdown of the VORP from each VORP ranked slot (the #1 VORP, etc):

#1: 7.3 | 8.7 | 8.4 | 8.6 | 8.1
#2: 2.8 | 3.0 | 3.9 | 5.5 | 3.3
#3: 2.8 | 2.0 | 2.6 | 2.4 | 3.3
#4: 1.6 | 1.8 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.6
#5: 1.5 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 1.4
#6: 1.4 | 0.9 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 0.2
Others: -0.5 | -1.0 | -0.3 | -2.3 | -0.9

1987 was notable for two things: McHale posting an unusually good year and the bench falling apart. The Celtics had always been fairly top-heavy, but after ‘86 their bench was pretty weak. Walton was out, Wedman missed almost the entire year, Parish sprained his ankle and kept playing and McHale broke his foot (hairline, but still).

So, if I’m summarizing, the ‘86 Celtics made the leap by adding Walton (and by him staying healthy), and injuries to pretty much everyone brought the Celtics right back down to merely being very good.

I don’t want to overplay it, Walton only played 17 minutes a game in the regular season, and only 18 a game in the playoffs. That sounds underwhelming, but here’s some context. Walton didn’t take a ton of shots, but he made them at rates only a few percent behind McHale (quite an accomplishment since McHale was one of the most efficient scorers ever). He also posted one of the Top 5 rebounding percentages in the league (2nd defensive) and also posted a particularly high block percentage. Walton, when he played, was easily one of the better big men in the league, certainly better than Parish and possibly comparable to McHale once his defense was taken into account. He didn’t play a lot of minutes . . . but the Celtics in the 80s never had a particularly good bench. Imagine upgrading a below league average big to one of the top ten bigs in the league. Huge upgrade, right? Now drop that upgrade by half (because it’s only for 17 mpg) and . . . that’s still a big upgrade. Here’s the list of the Celtics’ defensive ratings from ‘84 to ‘88:

Defensive Efficiency: -3.2 | -1.6 | -4.6 | -1.5 | +1.4

That middle figure really sticks out. For that one year only, the Larry Bird Celtics were able to combine their consistently excellent offense with the best defense in the league. And Walton at this stage was the perfect ceiling raiser. He didn’t need the ball to generate value. He didn’t take a lot of shots (but he made the ones he took at a high rate), he rebounded a ton, he passed well and he was a monster defender. And thanks to his joining the team (and staying healthy), he raised the Celtics from a great team to one of the greatest teams ever.

Bird’s regular season was a slight step down from the prior year, and McHale played 250 fewer minutes, yet the Celtics improved by 3 SRS and five wins. I attribute the bulk of that to Walton’s effect, and the bulk of Walton’s effect to his defence.

(Realistically I think McHale was the Celtics’ most important defender in the postseason, but I have been consistent about using my third place vote in this award to reward untraditional leaders of a #1 regular season defence.)

I expect Manute will be the most common third ballot choice, but I cannot move past the fact the Bullets defence becomes worse than the prior year after replacing Mahorn with him and Roundfield.

Offensive Player of the Year

1. Magic Johnson
2. Larry Bird
3. Charles Barkley

Barkley’s break-out season is a safe third choice with Jordan injured and Isiah mildly disappointing in the postseason. Gave some brief consideration to Alex English, but ultimately his season is just a lesser season across the board compared to Barkley’s season.

The real debate is Magic and Bird. Regular season, still no question Magic for me. Lakers were the best offence, and we know Magic is exerting massive lift on the team (the offence/defence splits are relatively balanced, but I am not going to pretend this pre-peak Magic was a secretly elite defender with only mild offensive impact). But in the postseason the Lakers are a 1-4 exit in the conference finals, while Bird has one of his two good postseasons and wins the title. And against the Rockets specifically, the Celtics’ offence performs better than the Lakers’ offence (with all the caveats that statement entails).

Throughout this project I have repeatedly gestured at the principle that the offensive effect of passers can be limited by their personnel. I do not see any real “limit” for Magic here, because the Lakers were an elite offence right up to the final four games of the season. So then my question becomes whether Magic let the team down?

In those four losses, Magic averaged 21.3 / 8.3 (2.0 + 6.3) / 15.8, with 2.3 steals and 3.3 turnovers, on 59.5% efficiency. Larry Bird in his four wins averaged 25.5 / 9 (1.25 + 7.75) / 10.5, with 3 steals and 2.8 turnovers, on 62.5% efficiency. By the box score, I am not seeing an appreciably lesser performance, and personally I think Magic’s box score looks better. And again, those are his losses and those are Bird’s wins. Does not seem to be a case of letting the team down at all from that front.

Next question then is where did the Lakers seem to struggle on offence by comparison. In the four losses, they averaged 104.5 points (83.2 rest of team total), 12.8 offensive rebounds (10.8 rest of team total), 8.8 steals (6.5 rest of team total), and 19 turnovers (15.7 rest of team total), on 53.9% efficiency (might calculate this rest of team total later, but it self-evidently is worse without Magic). Pretty rough.

The Celtics in their wins averaged 112.3 points (86.8 rest of team total), 12.5 offensive rebounds (11.25 rest of team total), 10.3 steals (7.3 rest of team total), and 14.5 turnovers (11.7 rest of team total), on 58.4% efficiency (self-evidently much better than the Lakers even without Bird).

The difference then is that the Celtics in their four wins scored 3.6 more non-Bird/Magic points on fewer non-Bird/Magic shot attempts, grabbed ~0.4 more non-Bird/Magic offensive rebounds, forced 0.8 more non-Bird/Magic steals, and gave up 4 fewer non-Magic/Bird turnovers, all while playing at a slower pace than the Lakers did.

Question then becomes, to what extent are we willing to attribute those disparities directly to Magic and Bird? Turnovers I see no case for Bird, outside of a very abstract, “Bird’s presence and selection of passes meant his teammates were better positioned to avoid turnovers.” But for the sake of argument, let us say Bird is better at boxing out, attracts more valuable defensive attention, and makes more “valuable passes”. Absolutely none of that is something I take as a given, but at minimum I think you need to be arguing it to reflexively side with Bird here (outside of the simpler rationale of “he won MVP and Finals MVP as best offensive player on an historic title team, ergo he should be Offensive Player of the Year”). If we assume all of that, does it justify the gap in team offensive success in those four games for each?

For me, it absolutely does not. The Lakers across the board performed worse on offence (even at the free throw line) than they had in the regular season, and to me no significant part of that is rationally attributable to any particular failing of Magic in those four losses. I think Magic was more valuable and better than Bird, and he performed at least on par with Bird individually against the Rockets; Magic’s teammates struggling for four games, without any real fault of Magic, does not erase a full season (and two rounds) of superiority. At absolute worst, it is a signal for a change in team strategy — which manifested the following year.

Player of the Year

For this season I have a runaway top three — what I think should have been among the clearest in the entire project — and then a relatively secure fourth. The fifth is difficult. In consideration are Dominique Wilkins, Isiah Thomas, Charles Barkley, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Sidney Moncrief, and Alex English.

Isiah is a first round exit and I am not clear he outperformed Wilkins. But Wilkins was abysmal against the Celtics. When even Trex is not giving the guy a fifth place vote this year, hard for me to get there. Yeah, he was second place in MVP voting; turns out awards are often problematic — who knew! Just because he was widely perceived as the league’s second best forward does not mean he was, or at least not this year.

I gave stronger consideration to Kareem. In the regular season, I probably have him here without question, and through two rounds of the postseason he maintained well. And his third round is not even bad… but then I look at how English and the Nuggets fared against the Rockets by comparison, and I would need to be a lot higher on his defence this year to excuse that disparity in production.

In offensive player of the year, I said I cannot elevate English over Barkley for that award because Barkley was better across the board, and he was. Offensively. But my major criticism of Barkley has always been his defence. He is better now than he will be on the Suns, and much better than he will be on the Rockets, but I still see him as a clear negative. Luckily he plays with Cheeks and Bobby Jones, so the team is relatively insulated, but on the Nuggets we might see more of a retrain of their 1981-84 teams. English is not a particularly “good” defender, but I would characterise him as reasonably fine. The Nuggets have been and will be consistently decent on that end since the 1984 trade with the Blazers. That does not mean I think he is better than Barkley, but the gap narrows.

And that gap narrowing is important here because what I am assessing is level of accomplishment, with a strong eye to the postseason. English takes his team six games against the Rockets. It is not especially competitive on average, but they were five points away from pushing it to a Game 7. Overall, solid performance. On the other side of the bracket, injuries make a lot of noise. The 76ers do not have Moses. Barkley beats a bad Bullets team 3-2, loses 0-3 against the Moncrief Bucks, but is 3-1 against the Moncrief-less Bucks. The Bucks move on to the conference finals where the Celtics casually sweep them. Moncrief misses another game and is visibly limited.

Wait, what about Moncrief then? Well, I see him as an ensemble player. I think I gave him some cursory support in 1984 because he led a conference finals team in postseason minutes and assists (on top of being their best perimetre defender), but he has never been a truly foundational piece to me. Generally not a great postseason scorer, and since Marques faded out as the team’s best player, the Bucks have been underwhelming in the postseason relative to their SRS finishes. I will not go so far as to equate them with George Karl’s Sonics, because they have not experienced an upset anywhere near the scale of what the Sonics had in two consecutive years, but they have not even come close to the heights of their regular seasons. 4.4 PSRS next year. 2.8 PSRS in 1984 and 1988. And -0.6 PSRS in 1985. This year is skewed by Moncrief’s absences, but I do not think his four missed games elevate their real level too far above their +1.0 overall result. The Moncrief-led Bucks are a consistently okay postseason team. Good enough to usually win as a higher seed, but not offering much more than that. And to me Moncrief is not that far removed from Pressey and Cummings.

So where does that leave us? Isiah is a first round exit to Wilkins, Wilkins struggles to score against the Celtics, Moncrief is a lesser star on an unspectacular ensemble, Barkley loses to that unspectacular ensemble and is only even close because Moncrief is injured, Kareem struggles against the Rockets, and English gets kind-of close to going to a Game 7 against the Rockets.

Well, if no one impresses me much in the postseason, then the most sensible route is probably to defer to the best regular season player, and I think that was Kareem.

Fourth place is McHale. Best defender on the Celtics throughout the postseason, frequently their best scorer, and is on a path to an outstanding 1987 campaign.

Third place is Magic. As I have pretty consistently felt, I prefer him in the postseason to Bird, and since Nixon left I think he has been right on par with Bird in the regular season. If I were feeling petulant and in the mood to penalise Bird for arbitrary and spiteful reasons, that alone could give me easy justification to move Bird to third. But that is not how I have approached this project. When I think of 1986, do I think of Magic before I think of Bird? Of course not. He did not win MVP or even come close, the Lakers were not the best regular season team, and he was a 1-4 conference finals exit to the Finals runner-up. Great season, but nothing there is particularly memorable, and this is not a case of 1979 Kareem where he was just so laughably ahead of the pack that I can excuse the seasonal irrelevance. Anyone voting for him top two is fine with me, but by my voting standards, two players defined the season more.

I have gestured at there being some amount of intuitive sense to the “MVP + Finals MVP = RPoY” approach. One is the most important regular season award, and the other is the most important postseason award, ergo winning both means you must have been the most important player that season. Again, if people want to use that approach, I think it is fine. But it also removes any responsibility for personal assessment. This is most apparent with the 1970 Willis Reed situation, where many can rationally feel he should not have won MVP (generally preferring Kareem or West), and many can rationally feel he should not have won Finals MVP (generally preferring Frazier). If we want to create room for personal assessment, perhaps then we can say “top regular season player + best player on title team = RPoY,” in much the way others will take the approach “my assessed overall best player = RPoY” or “top regular season player = RPoY if nothing in the postseason clearly changes my regular season assessment”.

With Bird, this is where I stand: I do not think he was necessarily the best or most valuable regular season player, but I agree with the MVP award and am fine penalising his chief competitors for missed time. I do not think he was necessarily the best player in the Finals, but he was the best player on the title winning team and had a strong enough Finals that I would be surprised to see anyone else win Finals MVP.

But my personal standard is which player do I think ultimately defined the season, and that is not 1:1 with “MVP (or equivalent) + Finals MVP (or equivalent = automatic RPoY”. It usually is, but not always. And the easiest way to disrupt that is for there to be another player who impressed me more in the postseason over a large enough sample that it is possible for me to feel confident in them as the better player, while also achieving enough on their own that when I think about the season in question, I can picture them equally or above the “MVP and Finals MVP” (or equivalent).

This is rare but does come up a few times. 1970 is a good choice where people can think of that season and picture someone other than Willis Reed. In 1962, plenty of people take Wilt over Russell even though Russell won MVP and likely would have won Finals MVP. To further extend these hypotheticals, if Rick Barry had won MVP in 1975, many would still prefer Bob McAdoo, and if Giannis had won MVP in 2021, a large group would still try to swear by Jokic.

I suspect the disconnect this year is that the average person does not see 1986 Hakeem on the level of most of those “losers”, save perhaps 1975 McAdoo, and the average person sees 1986 Bird on a level above several of those “winners”. In that case, maybe the most analogous year (for multiple reasons) is 1981. Bird could have won MVP: he was second, after all, and 1981 Erving’s negative on/off data would have been disqualifying for many voters today. Bird also could have won Finals MVP, although regardless of whether he did, everyone recognises him as the top player on the team. Nevertheless, some do prefer Moses that year, perhaps tying his 1981 to his 1982 and 1983.

I have never thought too highly of Bird. Sure, relative to his era he is a stand-out, and I am fine qualifying him as a top fifteen to twenty peak in that sense, but neither matches his reputation. People deify Bird, sometimes even those who are relatively neutral arbiters (i.e. not a childhood fan, and not looking to over-credit him for his skin tone). They will reference the mythos, and the aura, and the highlights, and the reputation. They will force him into abstracted personal theories of the way the game “should” be played. When I watch him, I am comparatively underwhelmed. Good not great scorer. Theoretically good shooter, but not occupying the type of gravity or leveraging the type of movement we will see explode onto the scene in the next few years. Rarely has a negative play, but part of why is because he has so much talent around him that his level of involvement is relatively low for an all-time MVP player. Gifted passer, sure, yet hardly unprecedented, and without anywhere near the volume of his primary rival.

This year specifically has been mythologised by a frankly ludicrous supporting cast, to the point I suspect several all-star wings or forwards could have conceivably won a title in his place. He is famously used as a prop to elevate sophomore Jordan, but that is only possible because of how few people come away from that sweep thinking Bird was the top player in it. And I am generally not enthralled by young Jordan either, so this is a bad place to start. He is the best player against the Hawks, but he is not responsible for Wilkins’s scoring struggles, and I think Wilkins was only the a fringe top five forward that year anyway — and one of the four ahead is Bird’s own teammate! Best player against the Bucks, but I already discussed how I feel topping (an injured) Moncrief is a relatively low individual bar. And then we hit the Finals, which many frame as a playmaking clinic because of the high assist totals but which I end up feeling is something of a first round retread, except this time we are replacing gaudy scoring totals with gaudy defensive involvement.

Olajuwon, who has been playing forward instead of center during much of the postseason, scored 11 points during a frenetic final period. Four of those points came during a crucial stretch when the Rockets outscored the Lakers by 9-2 to build a 114-107 lead with 1 minute 20 seconds remaining.

Olajuwon also had a game-high 12 rebounds - five on offense - that carried Houston to a commanding 45-34 advantage on the boards. ''He was every place he had to be at the right time,'' said Riley, who has guided the Lakers to the finals in each of his four seasons as coach. ''He was just incredible.''

(So much for lacking awareness. )

LISTEN TO MAGIC Johnson talk and you wonder if he is campaigning forpresident of the Los Angeles chapter of the Akeem Olajuwon fan club.

"In terms of raw athletic ability, Akeem is the best I've ever seen," the Los Angeles Lakers' All-Star guard says.

"I'm definitely amazed at him - at his fakes, his pivot move, his timing on blocked shots, his scoring ability, his effort.

"He's been outstanding against us."

Don't misunderstand Magic. While he applauds Olajuwon's role in the Houston Rockets' building a 2-1 lead over Los Angeles in the best-of-seven NBA Western Conference Finals, he firmly believes, too, that the Lakers can - and must - do a better job against Akeem.

"I'm angry and upset about the way we've played in this series," Johnson says as the defending champion Lakers prepare for Game 4 today at 2:30 p.m. before a sellout crowd at The Summit.

"We can't let the Rockets keep pinning us up under the hoop," Johnson says. "We can't let them take us this easily. We've been backed up under the basket, while they get all the offensive rebounds. You don't let anybody force you to back up in the Western Conference Finals."

The Rockets, however, have done exactly that, especially 7-footer Akeem the Dream and 7-foot-4 center Ralph Sampson.

The Twin Towers have combined for 151 points and 72 rebounds in three games. They are primarily responsible for Houston holding a surprising 137-107 advantage in overall rebounding and a 49-33 edge on the offensive boards.

In their spare time, Olajuwon and Sampson have blocked 20 shots, six more than the entire Los Angeles team.

"We're going after every rebound and trying for every blocked shot, and we'll continue to do that," Olajuwon says. "We don't want to give them any second shots. That's our goal. Offensive rebounding is the key."

The Lakers agree.

"We've got to emphasize defensive rebounding," Johnson says. "We gave up 20 offensive rebounds Friday night (in a 117-109 Houston victory), and that's way too many.

"If we can cut that in half, we'll probably win because we've been shooting 50-60 percent.

"That's what makes me mad. If we weren't making any shots, we could accept it and just say they beat us. But we are shooting well. And we've played good defense. We watch the film and it's clear: We're getting beat by second shots."

Especially by Olajuwon.

Three-year professional Sampson has been effective playing head-to-head against 17-year Los Angeles legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

But Olajuwon, who is completing only his second professional season, has been the standout.

"And Akeem probably is going to overshadow Ralph forever because there are so many things he can do," Johnson says.

"That's not a knock at Ralph. We know Ralph is good. And he helps make Akeem better. But Akeem does so much. He knows he can score every time he gets in a one-on-one situation. He can score off the glass, on the jump shot, even on the fast break because he's so fast.

"And the stats don't tell you everything. I wish I'd have known two days ago he used to be a soccer goalie. He stole the ball from me once Friday night when he moved his hands quicker than I ever thought he could. I've made that same pass hundreds of times. But his hand reaction stole it. That's a soccer goalie."

Reminded that Olajuwon has played basketball only for seven years, Johnson says, "He looks like he's done it forever. His repertoire is amazing for a man who has played such a short time."

"He's got an excellent workmanlike game," Johnson says. "He's the best in the league at second, third and fourth efforts.

"But we've got to extend him to sixth and seventh efforts. We haven't done all we can do. He wouldn't be playing 45 minutes and scoring 40 points if we were."

The Lakers say they must defend Olajuwon long before he gets the ball.

"We've got to work harder after he's got it, but before is more important," Johnson says. "We've got to work together. If he gets in a one-on-one situation, and if he only has to make one move, he's too good to stop. So we can't let him have those situations.

(Sure sounds like these guys think he has “amazing moves”. )

The Rockets now lead the best-of-seven series 3-1 following their third consecutive victory and have added history as their ally. Only four teams in the annals of the NBA have ever rallied from a 3-1 deficit to win a playoff series, the last being Boston over Philadelphia in 1981.

But historical perspective does not loom nearly as large over the Lakers as the sheer presence of Akeem Olajuwon, who has made this playoff series his oyster and added yet another near-perfect specimen to his string of pearls.

Olajuwon again used his strength, quickness and relentless drive to pile up 35 points, 8 rebounds, 4 blocked shots and left the Lakers in the same ruined shape as Mexico City after the earthquake.

He has left the Lakers a befuddled group, helpless and moving toward an inevitable elimination. A team waiting to be put out of its misery.

Olajuwon led a Houston assault that outrebounded LA for the fourth consecutive game and treated the Lakers like interlopers at a private party.

The Rockets beat LA 49-38 on the backboards and dominated the inside on defense by blocking seven shots.

Olajuwon continues to be the most unsolvable riddle facing the Lakers, grabbing every key rebound and making every key play even on a day when he did not have the benefit of his bookend teammate Ralph Sampson for very long.

Sampson, shackled by foul problems, played just six minutes in the entire second half. But the Rockets never missed a beat and pulled away again from LA down the stretch.

Olajuwon was able to have his way again, despite a more determined, more physical Laker effort that tried to push him, bang him and throw him to the floor at every opportunity.

They beat the bleep out of me," Olajuwon said. But that is OK. If they want to play that kind of ball, play physical, I like it. That is the style that I first learned how to play, and I am not afraid to bang anybody."

Olajuwon's shooting touch was off a bit on Sunday as he hit just 11 of 23 shots from the field. But the fury with which he latched onto six offensive rebounds and his explosiveness in going to the hoop, resulted in his virtually establishing residence on the foul line, hitting 13 of 20 free throws.

Lakers Coach Pat Riley has thrown everything but the proverbial kitchen sink at Olajuwon in terms of defense, only to watch it all wind up going down the drain.

Olajuwon makes his move so fast that there has been no time for the Lakers' double-teaming defense to even develop.

He is a twisting, juking, flying explosive device in the Lakers' faces, running the floor faster than any big man in memory and seemingly materializing at the last second to snatch away rebounds, then ramming them home.

Olajuwon is not playing the center position by the book, he is writing a brand-new one.

Hakeem’s Lakers upset is far and away more impressive than any series win in Bird’s career, with much less help. Sampson undeniably played well in the conference finals, but Sampson having the absolute best stretch of games in his entire career means he ends up being maybe on par with a typical Kevin McHale series. Then Reid and McCray are both good, and they play consistently well, but in the sense that you feel fine about them rather than are outright impressed by them. And after that the Rockets drop off to a bunch of guys who can have their moments in relief but are also a far cry from Bill Walton or Michael Cooper.

The most frustrating part of this season is that for as outstanding as Hakeem and the Rockets were in the postseason, they could have been even better. The offence struggled against Dennis Johnson and the Celtics’ historically excellent rotation of bigs. I still consider Hakeem the most impressive player in the Finals despite those scoring struggles, but part of me wonders how much better he could have been if he had a real starting point guard to direct the offence. While Lucas was not a particular star, he had been in excellent form before his off-court addictions caught up to him. It is the sad story of most of Hakeem’s career that he never had much in the way of point guard play, and that had a habit of catching up with the Rockets despite a slew of extraordinary and valiant efforts from Hakeem.

Even still, Hakeem dominated the Lakers. When I think about this season, yeah, I think about the Celtics. I think about how they added a miraculous healthy season of Bill Walton and controlled the league, yet were still given a scare by, no, not the Lakers, but an upstart Rockets team led by the league’s most spectacular sophomore. The Celtics did what they were supposed to do. Hakeem did what no one expected, and for a moment made people wonder if he could do it twice.

1. Hakeem Olajuwon
2. Larry Bird
3. Magic Johnson
4. Kevin McHale
5. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

[Cavsfansince84]

Well if “let’s play hard tonight” and giving a motivational speech is what makes something even close to considerable impact, then ya got me.

I mean, at this point it feels like I am just speaking a language you don't understand when it comes to what intangibles mean in team sports so there's not much point in continuing to discuss it.

[trelos6]

OPOY

1.Magic Johnson. Best passer and playmaker in the league. Team rOrtg +6.1. 18.4 pp75 on +6.9 rTS%. Best offense in the playoffs.

2.Larry Bird. Gets better as a passer. 24.2 pp75 on +3.9 rTS%. Team rOrtg +4.6. Second best offense in the playoffs.

3.Isiah Thomas. 2nd best playmaker, a very good passer. 20 pp75 on +1.3 rTS%. Team rOrtg of +1.8 (7th in NBA). I’m not sold on Zeke here. I could easily have Dantley, Kareem, or McHale.

DPOY

1.Mark Eaton. Anchored the #3 defense. 4.6 blocks per game!

2.Manute Bol. DPIPM +5.31. 5 blocks a game!. Anchored the #4 defense.

3.Hakeem Olajuwon. 5.4 stocks!. Houston didnt have the best regular season defense, otherwise, Hakeem would be higher. 2nd best defense in the playoffs.

POY

1.Larry Bird. +4.51 OPIPM, +1.57 DPIPM. +6.08 PIPM. 21.12 Wins Added. Bird seems to get a bit of negativity for his playoff performances. Well, ‘84 and ‘86 his efficiency increased on his regular season form.

2.Hakeem Olajuwon. +2.51 OPIPM, +2.77 DPIPM. +5.28 PIPM. 15.99 Wins Added. 22.5 pp75 on +1.9 rTS%.

3.Magic Johnson. +4.83 OPIPM, +0.36 DPIPM. +5.18 PIPM. 15.07 Wins Added.


4.Charles Barkley. +2.15 OPIPM. +2.06 DPIPM. +4.22 PIPM. 14.91 Wins Added. 19.4 pp75 on +7.8 rTS%. Moses and Dr. J are getting old, but second year Barkley overtakes them already as the best sixer.

5.Kevin McHale. +2.31 OPIPM. +0.84 DPIPM. +3.16 PIPM. 11.33 Wins Added. 21.5 pp75 on +8.2 rTS%. Just pips Moncrief. Important cog in the best defense in the league.

[70sFan]

I wonder how people will look at Kareem here. He got a lot of support the thread before and I don't see any reason to rate him significantly lower than that. Facing really tough matchup in Houston didn't make him a worse player.

[Djoker]

Please watch Hakeem games, ENTIRELY. Look at how they’re guarding him once he catches the ball, I mean I’ve never seen someone front Hakeem so deep and leave the entry passer so open, maybe Shaq, idk about Kareem. And whenever Hakeem passes out, his entry passer (usually Mcray) is being contested right after bc he needs to be a step in to shoot a mid range bc he can’t shoot from range, AT ALL. In fact just finished watching a game from Hakeem, and he had created 6 open shots for his teammates.
https://youtu.be/Mk85BMB89-M?si=8GcvbzI-TllR6Ean
Mind you, he didn’t even play the whole game because of an ejection and fouls. If you were Hakeem, you probably wouldn’t pass much more than Hakeem did… and stop acting like Bird was creating so much advantages for his teammates either, because he wasn’t.

With all due respect to your tracking because it is quite time consuming to track (and I'm operating under the assumption that creation numbers OhayoKD quoted above are correct) forgive me if I have huge reservations about young Hakeem's creation being close to Bird's creation. That just goes so heavily against conventional wisdom as well as my own experience watching their film. Bird in my eyes is a radically superior playmaker to the point where it isn't close. Hakeem's biggest weakness is actually his poor passing. From 1993 onwards he got better but in his younger years it was a serious limitation.

I'm also curious how many games you sampled.

[trex_8063]

I've been away from it for a long time. Try to get one ballot in here (in honour of Election Day, perhaps), at least for POY. Forgive me if it's brief (these are things I've thought about to some degree, though)......

Player of the Year
1. Larry Bird - Hard for me to go against Bird in what many consider his peak season. And indeed it does seem like potentially the best combination of offense and defense and playoff resiliency in his career. I think one can make a case that his offensive game was a little better in '87 or '88 or '85, but his defense is falling off hard by then with his back troubles in '87 and '88, and he was less playoff resilient in '85.
They were the #1 defense in the land with a combo forward playing almost 400 more minutes than ANYONE else on the team. imo, that combo forward must have fair/decent defensively (which aligns with my perceptions in watching games of this year). Not without weaknesses, obviously, but still an overall net positive [or net-neutral at worst] on the defensive side of the ball this year. It's likely the last year this can be said for Legend.
On offense he's going for nearly 26 and 7 ast on good efficiency, anchoring the 3rd-rated offense. In the playoffs he's 26 pts and 8 ast on even BETTER efficiency (both shooting and turnover economy) on their way to a title. MVP of rs and Finals. idk, I just can't find reason enough to go with anyone else this year.

2. Magic Johnson - Magic is still doing magic things. Anchors the league's best offense, has a ridiculous individual playoff run (21.6/7.1/15.1 @60% TS with just 3.2 tov), but fell short of the Finals; they just had no answer for Houston's bigs.
I still feel he's the 2nd-best player in the game at this point.

3. Hakeem Olajuwon - I don't see a compelling argument for anyone other than these three as the top 3 for the year, given Hakeem's playoff performance. So it's pretty much by default [since I already decided on my top 2] that he has to go here; cannot go any lower with him, imo.
Maybe still a pinch raw [compared to his more polished look in the early-mid 90s], but still a marvelous athlete with a bounty of skill; outstanding two-way player. Nearly pulled off a Cinderella season.


After that, it gets harder for me. Dominique has an impressive rs; not sure I'd say 4th-best in league [though he actually finished 2nd in MVP vote], but very very good. But his playoff collapse is noted.
Ditto with Sidney Moncref (his playoff collapse is actually even more dramatic).

Kareem needs serious consideration (amazingly! 38 friggin' years old!). His effectiveness as a defender and rebounder are fastly fading into the sunset (might be part of the issue against Houston), but goodness he can still score and score (even in the playoffs). What an amazing player he was.

Charles Barkley needs some consideration; his MASSIVE turnover numbers give me pause. Knowing that he's not much of a defender, turning the ball over so much puts a certain dent in his offensive impact, I think. Still, he has a big playoffs, so definitely on the table.

I think Isiah Thomas needs at least some token consideration. Low efficiency, but just pouring out huge numbers in that one series, trying to drag the Pistons along (and their offense does just fine against Atlanta; it was their defense that dropped the ball, with the Hawk frontcourt [and Randy Wittman] going off).

Alex English looks promising, again except for the some drop in efficiency in the playoffs. Honestly, if I thought to include one of the volume scoring SF's, I'd probably have to go with Nique, based on the stronger rs.

Moses' efficiency is slipping a little this year, and he misses the playoffs. So probably not going with him.

Kevin McHale feels like the one other guy who merits serious consideration. Super-efficient scorer, more than capable defender; consistent through the playoffs on way to a title.
So......(throws dart)

4. Charles Barkley
5. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Top HM feels like Kevin McHale. Am seriously thinking about swapping him in. Will consider and try to read some arguments/other opinions.

[trelos6]

I wonder how people will look at Kareem here. He got a lot of support the thread before and I don't see any reason to rate him significantly lower than that. Facing really tough matchup in Houston didn't make him a worse player.

Kareem was in my top 10.

[One_and_Done]

1. Bird
Easily my #1 candidate. This was Bird at his peak or close, and his incredible impact led the Celtics to the #1 record and the title. Strong playoffs compared to some of Bird’s other years.

2. Magic
Hakeem had a great year, but he wasn’t as good as Magic. The Lakers may have lost to the Rockets, but I don’t blame Magic for that. He had a great series.

3. Barkley
4. Hakeem
Huge season from Dream, but I don’t think Hakeem was as good in 86 as later in his career, and that’s not a terribly controversial opinion. Hakeem peaked from 93-95, an unusual late career peak. On further review, I don't think he did enough this year to be ranked over Barkley. Hakeem wasn't giving his team much of a defensive lift this year given they were 14th in Drtg out of 23 teams. The Rockets upset the Lakers, but honestly that was the only team the beat that mattered due to the West being weaker, and the context provided by future years shows it was a one off fluke. The Sixers and Bucks were better than Houston this year, they just played in the tougher conference.
5. Moncrief

I considered Wilkins, English & Kareem, but honestly none of these guys was as good as Sir Charles or Moncrief.

[OhayoKD]

Voting Post

1. Hakeem

Despite Sampson's production falling off a cliff from 84 and 85, the Rockets post an outlier good(they are -3ish generally and in surrounding years) without signal for Olajuwon of...-0.6 (7-7). With Hakeem they play like a 53-win team. Good signal, but it's not the sort of thing that demands a #1 finish. But then the postseason happens. Despite losing a key piece to cocaine and running against not one but two, at least statistically, all-time playoff juggernauts(excepting when they played Hakeem), the Rockets pulled off the following:

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2312865

Through 3 rounds, on the back of Hakeem anchoring, and yes, it seems Hakeem should get far more credit than Sampson imo...

Spoiler:

Rim-Load, 1986, Game 5
Boston
Mchale - 16
Walton - 11
Parish - 7
Bird - 6

Houston overall
Hakeem - 21
Sampson - 9

Houston pre-ejection

Hakeem - 15
Sampson - 9

Overall

Hakeem - 21
Mchale - 16
Walton - 11
Sampson - 9
Parish - 7
Bird - 6

... an all-time postseason defense:

Spoiler:

Here’s what the ‘85—‘87 Lakers did in the playoffs:

1985 Lakers vs.Suns: +18.7 NRtg, 124.6 ORtg
1985 Lakers vs. Blazers: +10.2 NRtg, 117.9 ORtg
1985 Lakers vs. Nuggets: 10.8 NRtg, 117.4 ORtg
1985 Lakers vs. Celtics: +2.5 NRtg, 112.3 ORtg

1986 Lakers vs. Spurs: +31.4 NRtg, 122.7 ORtg
1986 Lakers vs. Mavs: +5.1 NRtg, 119.7 ORtg
1986 Lakers vs. Rockets: -3.6 NRtg, 107.4 ORtg

1987 Lakers vs. Nuggets: +25.2 NRtg, 125.1 ORtg
1987 Lakers vs. Warriors: +10.5 NRtg, 121.7 ORtg
1987 Lakers vs. Sonics: +11.4 NRtg, 117.2 ORtg
1987 Lakers vs. Celtics: +4.3 NRtg, 118.4 ORtg

NOBODY could stop that Lakers offense—the 1985 Celtics slowed them a little, but the Rockets did something pretty extraordinary in 1986 that really doesn’t get celebrated enough. 1990 Jordan was of course amazing, and played great in the playoffs (though the 1990 Pistons aren’t in the same tier as this Lakers team—1990 pistons had some of the best health ever and were still a tier below that Lakers’ juggernaut), but 82 games, 39 mpg of a player basically at his peak producing that SRS (and then playinand seems to be swept away while what 1986 Hakeem did doesn’t seem to get the fanfare it should.
...

Round 1: Chicago Bulls (-3.1), won 3-0, by +13.7 points per game (+10.6 SRS eq)
Round 2: Atlanta Hawks (+3.7), won 4-1, by +9.6 points per game (+13.3 SRS eq)
Round 3: Milwaukee Bucks (+6.7), won 4-0, by +15.0 points per game (+21.7 SRS eq)
Round 4: Houston Rockets (+7.4), won 4-2, by +6.2 points per game (+13.6 SRS eq)

Offensive / Defensive Ratings from Opposition Regular Season Average:

Chicago Bulls: +9.0 / -0.3
Atlanta Hawks: +8.6 / -3.5
Milwaukee Bucks: +14.2 / -9.3
Houston Rockets: +4.3 / -4.6

...The Rockets perform like a juggernaut through the first 3 rounds and a solid title contender vs the Celtics(a series where Sampson reverted back to his regular-season self and missed most of a game)

The Rockets were something like a -10 defense vs the Lakers and a -6 defense vs the Celtics relative to their other playoff performances. That's two all-time teams powered by all-time offenses being thwarted by a defense where Hakeem is far and away the best rim-protector in terms of both usage and efficacy ontop of also being the most dynamic defender in the league.

Overall? The Rockets aren't just good, they're great. Looking at all four rounds of the playoffs they perform better statistically vs better competition than teams like the 2000 Lakers, 1990/1993 Bulls including a stretch where they won 7 of 11 games against all-time competition:

Spoiler:

Sacramento Kings (-3.2), won 3-0, by +14.3 points per game (+11.1 SRS eq)
Denver Nuggets (+2.1), won 4-2, by +8.8 points per game (+10.9 SRS eq)
Los Angeles Lakers (+10.0), won 4-1, by +3.6 points per game (+13.6 SRS eq)

If you were to ignore the first 3 rounds and just go by their worst series:

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)

Hakeem also sees his own volume and efficiency spike with playoff creation potentially in the ballpark of his main competition for #1:

Spoiler:

Creations:
Hakeem 1986-1990: ~6
Bird 1984-1988: ~6
Jordan 1987-1993: ~10
Magic 1987-1991: ~16

...


For a comparative frame, Hakeem, per-assist, had 2.3 DTOs and 2.9 defenders affected in HOU-LAC game 5 and HOU-SEA game 7(93, 12 total assists). Over 8 assists in the first game of the 2009 ECF I had Lebron with 2.4 DTOs per assist and 3 defenders affected on average. Over 8 on video Jordan assists in the 5th game of the 1991 finals, I gave Jordan, per assist, 1.5 DTOs and 1.9 toal defenders affected on average.

He reaches the final scoring 30 points on 60% true-shooting while anchoring a -10 playoff relative defensive performance. In the Finals he is still clearly the best player on the court dramatically out-rim protecting and really everything else to do with defense his teammates(probably the highest frequency creating rebounds for others by sealing opposing bigs off) while averaging 9 more points than his tram's next highest scorer (25) on 6 points better effeciency than the rest of his teammates despite directly being asked to go against(frequently facing triples)...

Spoiler:

Mchale - 16
Walton - 11
Parish - 7

We are 8 years removed from the likes of Walton and Thurmond posting top-of-the-line impact nearly netirely on defense. How much do think people the game changed that Hakeem can be far and away the best rim-protector, the best man defender, and the best help defender on a team making all-time offenses collapse, outpace his team massively in both scoring effeciency and volume, create 6-ish looks a game with league-best(besides magic) gravity, be the best rebounder on the floor(it's not just the 10+ boards, it's the fact he's sealing off centers to do it) and not be #1 here?

On that note:
[quote ="Trex_0863"]They were the #1 defense in the land with a combo forward playing almost 400 more minutes than ANYONE else on the team. imo, that combo forward must have fair/decent defensively[/quote]
You describe him as a combo forward but

1. They are 4th in their own team at the main things power-forwards are supposed to do(that is not minutes-adjusred), protecing the paint

2. They have a forward who is doing way more of the thing power-forwards are supposed to do picking up the small-forwards they're supposed to guard. Combo imples both, but his role is largely neither. I also don't understand the narrative that there was a collapse in the 86 offseason...as opposed the season he had his injury(which by his own book actually occured in 1983). It's like people are trying to retrofit bird's defense to the narrative.

Hakeem on the other hand is his team's primary creator, scorer, man defender, help defender, rim-protector, and rebounder facing significantly more defensive attention and facing much stouter positional comp. Bird seems to be getting judged on a big curve here to me.

2. Magic

Well he lost in 5 and Bird won in 6 so why is here? Because ontop of being a generally better player, he was probably better than Bird against the team he lost to

Spoiler:

For Magic’s 17 tracked assists, I gave him 37 DTOs, 19 EDTOs, and a total of 3 ADAs giving Magic a total of 40 defenders affected; This also gives Magic per-assist rates of 2.2 defenders taken out, 1.1 extra defenders taken out, and 2.4 total defenders affected.

For comparison, over 13 tracked assists, the Bird-man had 16[/n] DTOs, 7EDTOs, and 9 ADAs for a total of 25 defenders affected and per-assist rates of 1.2 defenders taken out, .54 extra defenders taken out, and 1.9 total defenders affected.

Here is a record of how other players tracked with the current process fare(excluding EDTOs):

Ontop of creating way more (the margin seemingly understated by the assist-disparity) he scores nearly as many points on better true-shooting. You'd have to think Bird is a significantly better defender. A tough sell when Bird is a big who is 4th in terms of paint-usage, is asked to guard the ball-handler the least, and all the tracking from multiple sources over the last year has bird commiting more negative plays than positive.

I don't see an argument for Bird here as a basketball player beyond reinforcing groupthink by just taking the player who won.

3. Bird
4. McHale

For now I'm defaulting to Bird for 3 but I can probably be swung here. I thought of the Celtics defense as a ensemble, but by my tracking it seems more like Mchale and co.

Spoiler:

Rim-Load, 1986, Game 5
Boston
Mchale - 16
Walton - 11
Parish - 7
Bird - 6

It's not just the volume, Mchale gets alot burned alot less frequently than Walton does. And ontop of that he's also the Celtics best man defender often asked to defend the guys by position Bird should. And ontop of that he handles the ball signficantly more(drawing extra defenders), is probably the Celtics best self-creator, creates a bit himself, and in the finals, the only series the Celtics were in any real danger, outscores Bird on better efficiency despite often being asked to do his thing vs Hakeem


I'll have to think more on this.


5. Kareem

Considering Charles

OPOY
1. Magic
2. Bird
3. Hakeem

DPOY
1. Hakeem
2. McHale
3. Eaton

[One_and_Done]

McHale over Bird seems pretty out there.

[konr0167]

1. Hakeem

Best defender in the league. Awesome two-way, outplays magic, outplays Bird, carries Houston way further than they should have gone. I don’t think Sampson was that good honestly. Hakeem was alot better defensively, even vs the Lakers

2. Bird
3. Magic
So, this is kind of a toss-up but I feel like I should give Bird some love for the title and the MVP, idk. Magic in general is a better player and probably plays better against Houston but this is kind of supposed to be Bird’s year and it’s one of the few times he actually gets better in the playoffs.

4. Mchale

The Celtics improvement from 85 to 86 was almost all defense and Mchale is clearly their best defender. He guards people the best, protecs the rim the best, and he’s also a good offensive player, handling the ball well, passing solid, and outscoring Bird vs the Rockets.

5. Jordan

He only plays 30 games but I just can’t see 5 players I’d rather have if I want my team to lift a larry’o brien trophy