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 for 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 and 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 data. He 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 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
