Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal
70sFan wrote: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 wrote:70sFan wrote: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 is definitely making my ballot here, likely as #4. Definitely among the most elite players still.
penbeast0 wrote:I feel like I already wrote this but I think it is basically just the same start as last year.
Boston and LA remain the super teams in the league with Boston the best RS team and the title winner as Houston upsets LA in the WCF. I remember no one I knew thinking Houston had much of a chance though Moses had quite a year. The third traditional 80s superteam in Philly is starting to slip a bit as Barkley, for all his numbers, can't make up for the aging of the rest of the squad. Milwaukee is actually the 3rd best RS team and ECF finalist beating Philly in the 2nd round. Houston is 2nd best in the West.
Other winning teams include Atlanta, Denver, Detroit, and Dallas.
Nique led the league in scoring followed by Dantley, English, Bird, and Purvis Short for another run of forwards. Laimbeer led in rebounding as Moses fell to 4th. Magic led in assists. LA had the league best Ortg (Dallas, Boston, Milwaukee), Boston had the best Drtg (Milwaukee was second). Bird led the league in PER, Win Shares, Box +/-, and VORP. Dantley was second in PER and Win Shares, Magic in Box +/- and VORP.
POY
1. Bird -- pretty clear cut
2. Magic -- still the leader of the second best team
3. Moncrief -- another strong run beating Philly but getting swept in the ECF hurt
4. Hakeem -- led Houston to the finals with great defense and good offense
5. Dantley -- still great scoring and efficiency, a hard combination to argue against
Cavsfansince84 wrote:penbeast0 wrote:I feel like I already wrote this but I think it is basically just the same start as last year.
Boston and LA remain the super teams in the league with Boston the best RS team and the title winner as Houston upsets LA in the WCF. I remember no one I knew thinking Houston had much of a chance though Moses had quite a year. The third traditional 80s superteam in Philly is starting to slip a bit as Barkley, for all his numbers, can't make up for the aging of the rest of the squad. Milwaukee is actually the 3rd best RS team and ECF finalist beating Philly in the 2nd round. Houston is 2nd best in the West.
Other winning teams include Atlanta, Denver, Detroit, and Dallas.
Nique led the league in scoring followed by Dantley, English, Bird, and Purvis Short for another run of forwards. Laimbeer led in rebounding as Moses fell to 4th. Magic led in assists. LA had the league best Ortg (Dallas, Boston, Milwaukee), Boston had the best Drtg (Milwaukee was second). Bird led the league in PER, Win Shares, Box +/-, and VORP. Dantley was second in PER and Win Shares, Magic in Box +/- and VORP.
POY
1. Bird -- pretty clear cut
2. Magic -- still the leader of the second best team
3. Moncrief -- another strong run beating Philly but getting swept in the ECF hurt
4. Hakeem -- led Houston to the finals with great defense and good offense
5. Dantley -- still great scoring and efficiency, a hard combination to argue against
Don't the Rockets deserve to be called the 2nd best team this year? I'm not sure I can understand anyone having Hakeem lower than 3rd tbh. He was the main reason the rockets made the finals and won 2 games as a 52 win team over a top 5 team of all time.
AEnigma wrote: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 Barkley’s season is superior across the board.
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.
OhayoKD wrote:Cavsfansince84 wrote: Don't the Rockets deserve to be called the 2nd best team this year? I'm not sure I can understand anyone having Hakeem lower than 3rd tbh. He was the main reason the rockets made the finals and won 2 games as a 52 win team over a top 5 team of all time.
Also doesn't seem consistent with taking Russell basically every year in the 60s':Spoiler:
Forget everything else he does defensively, Hakeem was far away the best rim protector on a team that held the Celtics [i]6 points below the Celtics other playoff opponents and the Magic 10 points vs the other comp. His RS signals are also generally better than Wilkins so I don't see the case here.
[/quote][/quote]penbeast0 wrote:OhayoKD wrote:Cavsfansince84 wrote: Don't the Rockets deserve to be called the 2nd best team this year? I'm not sure I can understand anyone having Hakeem lower than 3rd tbh. He was the main reason the rockets made the finals and won 2 games as a 52 win team over a top 5 team of all time.
Also doesn't seem consistent with taking Russell basically every year in the 60s':Spoiler:
Forget everything else he does defensively, Hakeem was far away the best rim protector on a team that held the Celtics [i]6 points below the Celtics other playoff opponents and the Magic 10 points vs the other comp. His RS signals are also generally better than Wilkins so I don't see the case here.
First, I look at regular season numbers more than postseason though I certainly take postseason into account. Milwaukee was the 2nd best defensive team in the league despite not having a center play 2000 minutes (they platooned Alton Lister and Randy Breuer). Houston was 14th out of 23, ie, in the bottom half on the league defensively (not Hakeem's fault, he was a strong defensive center even as a rookie). Milwaukee was also a better offensive team than Houston. Moncrief was more efficient and a much better passer than Hakeem, though arguably not having the gravitational pull of a good post player in that era. They both lost to Boston (Milwaukee in ECF), both beating top 3 teams to get there. Houston won two games against Boston while Milwaukee got swept but I think that's a bit less important than a full season's dominance team wise.
As for Nique, I am assuming that isn't directed at me since he didn't even come close to making my top 5 list. Dantley is
the league's best scorer (not best player or even probably best offensive player but volume plus efficiency he's the top guy) and as I had a bunch of candidates for the #5 spot, I gave it to him.
penbeast0 wrote:OhayoKD wrote:Also doesn't seem consistent with taking Russell basically every year in the 60s':Spoiler:
Forget everything else he does defensively, Hakeem was far away the best rim protector on a team that held the Celtics 6 points below the Celtics other playoff opponents and the Magic 10 points vs the other comp. His RS signals are also generally better than Wilkins so I don't see the case here.
First, I look at regular season numbers more than postseason though I certainly take postseason into account. Milwaukee was the 2nd best defensive team in the league despite not having a center play 2000 minutes (they platooned Alton Lister and Randy Breuer). Houston was 14th out of 23, ie, in the bottom half on the league defensively (not Hakeem's fault, he was a strong defensive center even as a rookie). Milwaukee was also a better offensive team than Houston. Moncrief was more efficient and a much better passer than Hakeem, though arguably not having the gravitational pull of a good post player in that era. They both lost to Boston (Milwaukee in ECF), both beating top 3 teams to get there. Houston won two games against Boston while Milwaukee got swept but I think that's a bit less important than a full season's dominance team wise.
70sFan wrote:Djoker wrote:70sFan wrote: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 is definitely making my ballot here, likely as #4. Definitely among the most elite players still.
I know it's just a RS game, but just looking at him torching Rockets Twin Towers at the age of 39 is surreal:
https://youtu.be/Ty2CF8CRgKU
https://youtu.be/yFUmYEDSvcQ
https://youtu.be/v8-cp6JlRQ4
https://youtu.be/8Hn2H7rE2zg
lessthanjake wrote:Kyrie was extremely impactful without LeBron, and basically had zero impact whatsoever if LeBron was on the court.
lessthanjake wrote: By playing in a way that prevents Kyrie from getting much impact, LeBron ensures that controlling for Kyrie has limited effect…
AEnigma wrote:The Bucks were 8-6 without Moncrief this year (counting the postseason), 25-18 without him in 1987, 15-11 without him in 1988, and 14-6 without him in 1989. That is a combined record of 62-41, or a 49.4-win pace. Seems like adding an all-NBA player to that level of supporting cast had a lot more to do with their “dominance” than did Moncrief’s own individual “efficiency” and passing.
And of course lack of team “dominance” has not stopped you from voting for Dantley fifth this round (Jazz were 42-40 with a 1-3 first round loss to a team which lost 2-4 to a team which lost 1-4 to a team which lost 2-4 in the Finals), or voting Jordan third last round (Bulls were 38-44 with a 1-3 first round loss to a team which lost 0-4 to a team which lost 1-4 to a team which lost 2-4 in the Finals), or again voting Dantley third two rounds ago (Jazz were 45-37, although at least now with a first round win). But Hakeem’s Rockets winning 51 games and going to the Finals with a historic upset over the defending champions? Mm, sorry, not enough “dominance”.
penbeast0 wrote:AEnigma wrote:The Bucks were 8-6 without Moncrief this year (counting the postseason), 25-18 without him in 1987, 15-11 without him in 1988, and 14-6 without him in 1989. That is a combined record of 62-41, or a 49.4-win pace. Seems like adding an all-NBA player to that level of supporting cast had a lot more to do with their “dominance” than did Moncrief’s own individual “efficiency” and passing.
And of course lack of team “dominance” has not stopped you from voting for Dantley fifth this round (Jazz were 42-40 with a 1-3 first round loss to a team which lost 2-4 to a team which lost 1-4 to a team which lost 2-4 in the Finals), or voting Jordan third last round (Bulls were 38-44 with a 1-3 first round loss to a team which lost 0-4 to a team which lost 1-4 to a team which lost 2-4 in the Finals), or again voting Dantley third two rounds ago (Jazz were 45-37, although at least now with a first round win). But Hakeem’s Rockets winning 51 games and going to the Finals with a historic upset over the defending champions? Mm, sorry, not enough “dominance”.
I believe I was answering a post implying that Hakeem was Russell level dominant defensively. I don't believe a Russell defense was ever in the bottom half of the league defensively; they did slip to 2nd once. I do believe Hakeem had a strong playoff run; I don't believe his regular season was dominant in that sense.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
One_and_Done wrote:It's interesting to me that most Hakeem voters seem to think McHale was better than Bird even though:
1) Bird made the Celtics a 61 win team before he got there.
2) McHale had a small role in the initial Celtics title.
3) When McHale had the chance to lead the team without Bird in 89 they won only 42 games.
4) in the 1 year where prime Bird and McHale overlapped where McHale did miss a decent chunk of games (1986) the Celtics were 11-3 without him (I.e. this very year).
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
One_and_Done wrote:Bird was past his prime even in 88. That's irrelevant. What's relevant is 89 was McHale's first chance to prove how he could carry a team minus Bird. The result was 42 wins.
There's nothing selective about my views on stuff like WOWY. I don't care about it period.
IlikeSHAIguys wrote:Maybe Bird was really the best but I can't just go off you saying he is.
1. Bird -Obvious IMO
Bird is the obvious #1. By the end of '86 he was getting GOAT arguments, nearly averaged a triple double in the Finals.
Larry Bird is an easy choice at number one.
1. Larry Bird - Won League MVP and Finals MVP, Led the league in Win Shares and Win Shares PER 48 minutes and PER. Led in Win Shares in the playoffs and finished 2nd in Win Shares per 48 minutes and 4th in PER in the playoffs.
For all Bird's hype as the ultimate team player, I think this is the year where he superseded and thus extirpated his own cachet; he ruled the league, period.
The irony of Bird's dominance is, of course, that his team was stacked. Bird's presence was close to being bigger than the league, or its stand-in through personification, but for all his individual greatness this would have been likely a non-starter without that team.
Saw that with Jordan's frustrations, and how overlooked even Air could be when put on a lacking roster.
Context as conflation and, from that, confusion. Bird was Bird because of Boston, and vice versa. Simplified. Not altogether true, but partially so on perception.
No question, he was the man. Team helped to put him in position, but so few have ever excelled to such a level when given the opportunity.
Logo Redux. Either bigger than the league's image, or just that.
