LA Bird wrote:Even for team performance, the Celtics declined more from last year than the Rockets in both the regular season (-2.5 vs -1.5 SRS) and playoffs (-9.6 vs -5.2 net). Hakeem only accomplished less relative to Bird if you look at series won (1 fewer than last season) but that severely undersells the gap between a GOAT level team like the 86 Celtics and the 87 Celtics, a team which didn't even make the top 100 list by sansterre.
The 87 Celtics' Finals appearance looks good if you are just ticking off boxes but it's very underwhelming when you look at how they got there and the team they had. Boston was the only team with two top 5 players after old Kareem finally faded but despite that, they barely beat the Bucks (+0.3 with 2 single possession wins) and the Pistons (-3.7 with 2 single possession wins) by tiny margins. Boston even had career high series from both DJ (22/5/10, 59% TS) and Parish (22/13/2, 60% TS) and still almost lost to Milwaukee, a team which they had crushed twice in previous title runs. Other than the usual first round domination of the Bulls, the 87 Celtics were quite weak the entire playoffs, especially defensively. You could say Bird had the highlight steal to eventually send them to the Finals but it should never have been that close in the first place if they hadn't played poor defense throughout the postseason.
I mean, you are factoring in Walton being injured again and McHale playing on a broken foot re the 86/87 Celtics comparison right? Walton barely even played the last two rounds and only played in 10g in the rs. Had the Celtics been fully healthy they most likely repeat imo.
That is the perpetual gamble with Walton. Certainly not the first time a team has said, ah, if only Walton were fully healthy.
One_and_Done wrote:I mean why even mention Bird's iconic steal at all? Surely it just cancels out his bad turnover on the previous possession.
Because it is relevant to the story of the season. It is an enduring memory pretty much everyone has. If the Celtics had lost that game and then gone on to also lose the series, then yes, what would be remembered is the turnover instead. And if he had made neither play, and the team still won, then as you said, nothing really changes except for the memory for that last second excitement.
I guess I'm surprised because I had thought that, like me, you were not rating players on nostalgic memories.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
One_and_Done wrote:I mean why even mention Bird's iconic steal at all? Surely it just cancels out his bad turnover on the previous possession.
Because it is relevant to the story of the season. It is an enduring memory pretty much everyone has. If the Celtics had lost that game and then gone on to also lose the series, then yes, what would be remembered is the turnover instead. And if he had made neither play, and the team still won, then as you said, nothing really changes except for the memory for that last second excitement.
I guess I'm surprised because I had thought that, like me, you were not rating players on nostalgic memories.
I am not, but that does not mean I am going to pointedly refuse to mention them when giving brief descriptions of how a season went.
This is a nonsensical accusation. You are not talking to someone who perpetually inflates players because of the quality of their teammates and has built their entire account around supporting their favourite player. I famously have no patience for those accounts, much to their evident ire even now. But even if I were such an account, do you really think Larry Bird would be the beneficiary? Or are you just yet again lashing out blindly without giving a half-second’s thought before hitting “submit”.
Obviously if I felt that Hakeem merited second place this year by my own standards, then I would list him there, and obviously if I felt Bird did not, then I would have zero qualms dropping him. But for as impressive as I find Hakeem, and for as incredible as his Game 6 against the Sonics was, the West only had one truly relevant team this year. And just like in real life, that irrelevance will likely end up disproportionately hurting his award share. I would love to give Hakeem eight top two vote placements, but if I did that, I would feel as though I were not giving proper recognition to the players who were having a significant effect on the season’s development. I save those type of “season-blind” assessments for the Top 100 or the Peaks Project.
My first thought was to check peak Iverson too as he played in a lower pace era than Jordan but he doesn't break 30 either. Peaked at 29.025 on a negative +rts%
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
I don't just want to go with what everyone says but everyone here is saying Magic 1 and everyone voting said Magic 1 and Magic wins the title with good numbers and I got no reason to vote him otherwise. Even people who put Hakeem 1 last thread are rating Magic higher so I'll be a good kid and put him 1 too. Hakeem debate seems to be between people who think he was the 2nd best and people who think other people didn't think he was the 2nd best which makes me wonder if they really think he wasn't the 2nd best. Also no one is really trying to explain what makes Bird or MJ or Barkley better than Hakeem so I'm starting to think they might not have been. Seeing someone actually say they think Hakeem was almost as good as Magic and still voting him below Bird also makes me sad. I know his team gets worse with lots of injuries and a suspension but his numbers are as good the one person who actually talked about how Hakeem played said Hakeem's offense was more polished and he seems to have played really well in the playoffs averaging 30? So unless his defense just went from DPOY to not uhhhh I don't see how Bird got better with his numbers going poof and his team also getting lots and lots worse. Isiah puts up great numbers and whatever his shooting his team seems to do way better than they were expected vs Boston. I don't really know why number people are so low on Isiah but maybe someone here can explain to me.
Barkley is really efficient and he actually wins some games so I'll just go on an island there. And yeah okay lets talk MJ. Last time Bird seemed like the guy people voted on vibes and now I guess MJ is the vibes guy. Like seriously how do you decide nah Hakeem not even top 5 because he doesn't win but then say aha Jordan who won less and didn't even win a playoff game is the 2nd best player in the league! Like did his team have some mega injury crisis I blanked on.
Think its a good question to ask how MJ is the 2nd best player but wins less than the 3rd or 4th or 5th or 6th best player with a better team. Far as I can tell people voting MJ don't want to answer or do anything other than vibes and some spreadsheet whatever. Okay I guess, but I'm not voting for that.
To be fair, Hakeem wasn't as good statistically this year. I'm not seeing where this extra offensive polish shows up in the box scores. His efficiency was down, his scoring volume was down, his rebounding slipped slightly due to less offensive rebounds, his turnovers were up and on the other end, his blocks and steals were down. Still a similar player but just a little worse. His assists were up a bit which was one area where the Hakeem supporters seem to differ most but every thing else was down. So, yes, not surprising in tight races that he slipped a little too.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
penbeast0 wrote:To be fair, Hakeem wasn't as good statistically this year. I'm not seeing where this extra offensive polish shows up in the box scores. His efficiency was down, his scoring volume was down, his rebounding slipped slightly due to less offensive rebounds, his turnovers were up and on the other end, his blocks and steals were down. Still a similar player but just a little worse. His assists were up a bit which was one area where the Hakeem supporters seem to differ most but every thing else was down. So, yes, not surprising in tight races that he slipped a little too.
The 1986 Rockets played at an estimated 103.5 pace. The 1987 Rockets played at an estimated 99.9 pace. (If someone with access to Thinking Basketball pace estimates wants to share those instead, go ahead.) Accordingly, per possession his points, rebounds, and blocks all went up slightly, and overall he looks comically similar across the board statistically. So no, he was just as good as he was last year, and given the rapidly degraded team context, there is an easy argument that not showing any decline qualifies as even more impressive — which is reflected in most box composites (e.g. OBPM, DBPM, WS/48, and PIPM all increase relative to his prior year), to a point where I am surprised anyone would try to characterise it as a worse season at all.
Best rs signals over the era, a stand-out in tracking both in terms of creation quantity and quality, most robust track-record in terms of replication, and good postseason translation to spearhead a title-winning campaign. There are arguments to be made for Hakeem (and even Jordan) but they are more convoluted and frankly that largely applies for the next two years as well. With all these 5th place ballots I think it's worth reminding ourselves what we're dealing with here for the next decade or so:
Spoiler:
Magic Johnson(3x MVP) 1980-1991 Lakers are +0.8 without, +7.5 with
Micheal Jordan(5x MVP) 1985-1998 Bulls are +1.3 without, +6.1 with
Hakeem(1x MVP) 1985-1999 Rockets are -2.8 without. +2.5 with
Spoiler:
Of course, a common knock on Hakeem is his consistency as an RS performer, but even over longer periods, he looks quite good. IIRC, if you use 10-year samples...
Hakeem takes 33-win teams to 48 wins, 15 win lift Jordan takes 38-win teams to 53.5 wins, 15 win lift Magic takes 44-win teams to 59
These are generally similar players by the data. Magic has a replication edge, Hakeem has a playoff edge, Jordan has a "Look what happens without him when his teams platoon" edge, but in general I'm going to be disappointed if voters are giving votes in strong years for one vs weak or middling years for the other. Jordan should run away with 1990 and 1992, Hakeem should run away with 1993 and 1995, and Magic should run away with 1987 and 1988.
Not opposed to a players outside of those 3 getting in between in particularly strong years (barkley, bird, ect) but no one here has much of a reason to pick against Magic in years he is winning titles, even with a shell of his peak support (88) I think. I think at the very least the film-stuff looked at so far justifies the plausibility of basketball reference missing something (Magic has a big edge in creation quality that is not actually accounted for in assists over MJ) and paired with them being impact peers there's just no real reason to be taking him in years he performs worse relative to his own general standards. (and to that point, I do think how a player shifts in a box-score has utility)
When Jordan leads the clear 2nd best team in 1990, he will get my vote. When Hakeem posts the best data, sees a massive production spike, and is at least plausibly a lead creator in 1993, he will get my vote. And when Magic is winning titles while neither Olajuwon or Jordan come particularly close, he will get my vote.
2. Hakeem
Considering he easily won #1 last time, and was pretty indisputably top 3...
AEnigma wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:To be fair, Hakeem wasn't as good statistically this year. I'm not seeing where this extra offensive polish shows up in the box scores. His efficiency was down, his scoring volume was down, his rebounding slipped slightly due to less offensive rebounds, his turnovers were up and on the other end, his blocks and steals were down. Still a similar player but just a little worse. His assists were up a bit which was one area where the Hakeem supporters seem to differ most but every thing else was down. So, yes, not surprising in tight races that he slipped a little too.
The 1986 Rockets played at an estimated 103.5 pace. The 1987 Rockets played at an estimated 99.9 pace. (If someone with access to Thinking Basketball pace estimates instead wants to share them, go ahead.) Accordingly, per possession his points, rebounds, and blocks all went up slightly, and overall he looks comically similar across the board statistically. So no, he was just as good as he was last year, and given the rapidly degraded team context, there is an easy argument that not showing any decline qualifies as even more impressive — which is reflected in most box composites (e.g. OBPM, DBPM, WS/48, and PIPM all increase relative to his prior year), to a point where I am surprised anyone would try to characterise it as a worse season at all.
In a year where Bird also disappoints massively (and the Indvidual stuff drops off further) I don't see much reason to drop him below 2. Consensus already skews against less successful players in a way that bleeds over to in-a-vacuum quality and I think this project will lose alot of value if people are reinforcing it in situations where they think someone performs worse but will just default to accomplishment. We have an opportunity to define accomplishment to be more about what a player does instead of the circumstances they luck into. I think we should take advantage of it. Hakeem gets alot better in the playoffs, Bird does the dead opposite. He got plenty of unwarranted praise in his own time at the expense of many others; no need to pile on there.
I will also add that even if someone holds that Hakeem got worse, it is hardly coherent justification for placing him below Jordan who won even less games in the regular season and whose team performed worse in the playoffs (I am not moved by "lost to a 39-win team" when the 39-win team makes the second round after beating a 55-win one.
In the samples I posted above where prime Hakeem comes around even with prime Jordan in the regular season (remember by both team-performance, and even the popularly used box-scores I've expressed much annoyance about, Hakeem tends to rise more), the Houston-less Celtics are a -2.9 team. This year they were -4.5. Over 85-87 they were -4.2.
The team circumstances have been talked about at-length but it's really just not a serious argument that Jordan was better this year I don't think. Unless you reject that Hakeem carries a ginomrous advantage in terms of how much he protects the rim/paint(my tracking has Jordan below average, and even 2nd year Hakeem vastly outstripping Jordan), there's no real reason to care what Jordan looks like vs Hakeem in formulas that paint Jordan as a top 30 or so paint-protector.
3. Jordan 4. Bird
I think Bird plays quite terribly in the postseason for your average top 3 pick but LA Bird has correctly pointed out he looks very good in terms of the raw data, even with a playoff focus, and there is teammate context behind the Celtics collapse (though it's not nearly comparable to what's there with Hakeem). Do I genuinely believe Bird is better than Jordan here? No. I think Jordan quite likely outplayed him directly. But that feeling can only go so far. Jordan's regular-season result is wildly unimpressive, particularly with the Bulls gearing the team around his strengths and replacing Woodridge with Oakley. He follows that up with a second straight non-competitive sweep and taking away the home-cooking and made-up formulas the next year isn't all that impressive either.
Jordan is also quite clearly the worst leader of this quartet. And I've never seen anyone who disagrees make a serious attempt at defending him on that front.
5. Isiah Thomas
I'd consider him as high as 3 if his shooting didn't collapse in the series result that could justify him coming third. But it did.
OPOY 1. Magic 2. Jordan 3. Bird
DPOY 1. Hakeem 2. Eaton 3. Oakley
For anyone balking at Oakley's selection(i'll have him next year too), here's why more or less:
Spoiler:
Cavsfansince84 wrote:
I wouldn’t say that analysis of 40 possessions in a random game is particularly persuasive of anything. Alright, then how about we do another one. This time from 1988 when Jordan was the leading shotblocker on his team and 16th in blocks in the whole NBA. The first full game that shows up from CHI vs DET on youtube is Game 3 where Jordan was one of two Chicago players to record a block:
Oakley 13 Corzine 9 Pippen 8 Grant 6 Jordan 3 Sam Vincient 2 Rory Sparrow 1 Elston Turner 1
(Doesn't add up exactly to 40 as there were a couple splits)
Some notes: -> rim-load only tracks usage, not efficacy, I'd say Oakley was very effective, Corzine not, Pippen Grant and Vincient were also effective, Sparrow and Turner not. -> Jordan was very effective the one time the other team drove, but the first 2 times he's credited as the paint-protector were quick possessions where the other team didn't really try to drive. -> Oakley had the most possessions where if I gave secondary credit he'd also be the #2, Grant and Pippen would come after
I plan on tracking more of the Bulls games to increase this sample but I feel Oakley being the lead rim-protector(Ontop of a strong man defender) should be something anyone who looks at these games can agree on if they look at all the possessions(and the whole of the possession) as oppposed to the ones where Jordan gets a hand to the ball from the weakside.
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
MJ was a hell of a player in 1987, already probably the best scorer in NBA history but his impact numbers jump a whole lot in 1988 that I think he made a quantum leap as a player between those seasons. I think he'll be my #3 here after Magic and Bird and then next year he starts a long streak of #1 finishes. It's easy to simply point to his poor team but the 1988 roster wasn't much better and yet the results were a lot better.
With that being said, his 1987 season is probably underrated defensively. Still, 1988 is one of the best defensive seasons by a non-big in NBA history so he still improved a bunch for sure on that end. Not to mention playmaking growth which took team offense to new heights. 1988 Jordan onwards was arguably the best player we've ever seen but 1987 Jordan isn't on that level.
Djoker wrote:With that being said, his 1987 season is [b]probably underrated defensively. Still, 1988 is one of the best defensive seasons by a non-big in NBA history so he still improved a bunch for sure on that end.
The funny thing is without the pretty well-established unrivalled home-cooking he enjoyed in 1988... https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2387572 His defensive bbr, the main basis of your evaluation of him as defender, is pretty much the same as it is in 1987.
Of course it was Oakley who joined the team and Oakley who saw a big minutes spike as the Bulls defense improved(Bulls defense was the same with or without Jordan in 1986), but that gets in the way of the "one of the best non-big defensive seasons ever" narrative
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
Djoker wrote:With that being said, his 1987 season is [b]probably underrated defensively. Still, 1988 is one of the best defensive seasons by a non-big in NBA history so he still improved a bunch for sure on that end.
The funny thing is without the pretty well-established unrivalled home-cooking he enjoyed in 1988... https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2387572 His defensive bbr, the main basis of your evaluation of him as defender, is pretty much the same as it is in 1987.
Of course it was Oakley who joined the team and Oakley who saw a big minutes spike as the Bulls defense improved(Bulls defense was the same with or without Jordan in 1986), but that gets in the way of the "one of the best non-big defensive seasons ever" narrative
What is defensive bbr? The inflation of his stocks is well documented in other threads and there is no need to rehash it. 4.8 stocks per game is so utterly ridiculous too that it doesn't shock me that it's somewhat inflated.
I watched plenty of games of 1988 Jordan and the thing that impresses me is just the sheer motor. Whether they are steals, blocks or neither, his energy is just causing so much havoc. He's blowing up so many plays by the opposing team it is just ridiculous. At some point, opponents are even throwing errant passes or dribbling the ball out of bounds because he just scares the bejezus out of them when he pounces out of nowhere. That's what I saw on tape and that's why his 1988 season is among the best ever defensively by a non-big.
By the way, Oakley played more minutes in 1987 than 1988. And yes despite the decline in minutes, the Bulls' D went from -0.7 rDRtg (11th) to -2.5 rDRtg (3rd) between those seasons. Hate to tell you this but Jordan as the catalyst seems very likely. Oak too had some serious impact though. Not denying that.
Best offensive player, best player, wins the title, wins MVP. Seems pretty easy. 2. hakeem 3. jordan hakeem leads worse team to better record and wins a playoff round so generally just seems more impactful in regular and post season 4. Bird
