Retro Player of the Year 1987-88 UPDATE — Magic Johnson

[One_and_Done]

We obviously should try to look at how a player is impacting their team through adding wins, but the signal for the top 6 candidates I just named isn't as clear as it could be because we have to consider the context. That includes who they played with, and the coaching/way they were being deployed.

Magic had a super deep team and was deployed in an optimal way. Guys like Jordan and Barkley not so much. If anything, I think the situation and team around Hakeem was better and more optimised for the era he was in.

If these guys were against 2002 Duncan or 2009 Lebron, then those 2 guys would be 1st by a mile.

[OhayoKD]

We obviously should try to look at how a player is impacting their team through adding wins, but the signal for the top 6 candidates I just named isn't as clear as it could be because we have to consider the context. That includes who they played with, and the coaching/way they were being deployed.

In what way did situation suppress Jordan's signals while Enabling Magic's?

The Bulls traded the only player who notably overlapped with Jordan in his third year and then geared the whole team around enabling Jordan to do what he did best. The Lakers shifted to an all-magic offense 8 seasons into his prime and he immediately demonstrated they should have done so earlier

Magic has a robust track-record of success with different coaches and distinct co-stars. Jordan does not. Jordan had a coach who, if assessed using similar signals, looks like an outlier among all coaches ever. Magic did not.

How exactly is Jordan being used sub-optimally beyond "well the team wasn't as good". Why would you assume the signals underrate MJ and not Magic?

[70sFan]

I assume my vote for the next 6 years will be for Jordan. We'll see if there's an unusually good case for someone like D.Rob in a singular year, but I doubt it.

There is one particular bigman that can challenge Jordan in some years, but you'd have to realize he's better than Charles Barkley in first place to consider him.

[One_and_Done]

I assume my vote for the next 6 years will be for Jordan. We'll see if there's an unusually good case for someone like D.Rob in a singular year, but I doubt it.

There is one particular bigman that can challenge Jordan in some years, but you'd have to realize he's better than Charles Barkley in first place to consider him.

Hakeem was better than Charles in 93, despite Barkley being MVP that year. 80s Hakeem was a different animal.

[70sFan]

I assume my vote for the next 6 years will be for Jordan. We'll see if there's an unusually good case for someone like D.Rob in a singular year, but I doubt it.

There is one particular bigman that can challenge Jordan in some years, but you'd have to realize he's better than Charles Barkley in first place to consider him.

Hakeem was better than Charles in 93, despite Barkley being MVP that year. 80s Hakeem was a different animal.

What made him different? Can you elaborate?

[One_and_Done]

There is one particular bigman that can challenge Jordan in some years, but you'd have to realize he's better than Charles Barkley in first place to consider him.

Hakeem was better than Charles in 93, despite Barkley being MVP that year. 80s Hakeem was a different animal.

What made him different? Can you elaborate?

I talked about it extensively in the top 100 project. Hakeem got better in 93, both statistically and otherwise. Why is something we can debate, but we won't ever know. Maybe he matured and everything clicked for him, maybe he was a late bloomer. I won't pretend to know what happened, because we'd all be speculating.

The bottom line was Hakeem started playing harder and smarter, and more consistently, whereas before he had a somewhat justified rep as a malcontent and a low intensity player.

[trelos6]

I may not respond to every comment, but I’m reading all the posts and have on occasion adjusted my picks based off some posts.

[70sFan]

Hakeem was better than Charles in 93, despite Barkley being MVP that year. 80s Hakeem was a different animal.

What made him different? Can you elaborate?

I talked about it extensively in the top 100 project. Hakeem got better in 93, both statistically and otherwise. Why is something we can debate, but we won't ever know. Maybe he matured and everything clicked for him, maybe he was a late bloomer. I won't pretend to know what happened, because we'd all be speculating.

The bottom line was Hakeem started playing harder and smarter, and more consistently, whereas before he had a somewhat justified rep as a malcontent and a low intensity player.

I don't really care about the explanation of the improvement, I am interested in what parts of his game improved and how you captured it. I don't see much of a statistical signal for him becoming different tier of a player outside of the increase of scoring volume, but I don't think that's enough to explain that.

By the way, who called Hakeem a low intensity player? When was the last time you have rewatched some late 1980s Rockets games? Calling Hakeem a low intensity player might be the most insane thing I have heard in a long time here. Late 80s Hakeem's intensity on defensive end is off the charts, he looked far more aggressive and engaged than in the mid-90s in fact.

[OhayoKD]

What made him different? Can you elaborate?

I talked about it extensively in the top 100 project. Hakeem got better in 93, both statistically and otherwise. Why is something we can debate, but we won't ever know. Maybe he matured and everything clicked for him, maybe he was a late bloomer. I won't pretend to know what happened, because we'd all be speculating.

The bottom line was Hakeem started playing harder and smarter, and more consistently, whereas before he had a somewhat justified rep as a malcontent and a low intensity player.

I don't really care about the explanation of the improvement, I am interested in what parts of his game improved and how you captured it. I don't see much of a statistical signal for him becoming different tier of a player outside of the increase of scoring volume, but I don't think that's enough to explain that..

I mean the creation jump might be bigger than the scoring one (I think Hakeem's creations double post Rudy by lebrony's count). 1993 is arguably the best season of anyone for the era by statistical impact.

[70sFan]

I talked about it extensively in the top 100 project. Hakeem got better in 93, both statistically and otherwise. Why is something we can debate, but we won't ever know. Maybe he matured and everything clicked for him, maybe he was a late bloomer. I won't pretend to know what happened, because we'd all be speculating.

The bottom line was Hakeem started playing harder and smarter, and more consistently, whereas before he had a somewhat justified rep as a malcontent and a low intensity player.

I don't really care about the explanation of the improvement, I am interested in what parts of his game improved and how you captured it. I don't see much of a statistical signal for him becoming different tier of a player outside of the increase of scoring volume, but I don't think that's enough to explain that..

I mean the creation jump might be bigger than the scoring one (I think Hakeem's creations double post Rudy by lebrony's count). 1993 is arguably the best season of anyone for the era by statistical impact.

That's the problem - Hakeem's creation went up in a very significant part because of Rudy's scheme. It's not like he learnt how to beat double teams at the age of 30 - Rudy built a system that gave Hakeem a lot of space inside and leveraged easy reads for him.

I don't doubt that Hakeem got slightly better passer in time (most player do), but I don't find any substantial differences in his playmaking ability. It's always very tough to separate one from another, but I don't think Hakeem became better than Barkley simply because he could find open teammate on the 3 point line after hard double.

[Djoker]

We obviously should try to look at how a player is impacting their team through adding wins, but the signal for the top 6 candidates I just named isn't as clear as it could be because we have to consider the context. That includes who they played with, and the coaching/way they were being deployed.

In what way did situation suppress Jordan's signals while Enabling Magic's?

The Bulls traded the only player who notably overlapped with Jordan in his third year and then geared the whole team around enabling Jordan to do what he did best. The Lakers shifted to an all-magic offense 8 seasons into his prime and he immediately demonstrated they should have done so earlier

Magic has a robust track-record of success with different coaches and distinct co-stars. Jordan does not. Jordan had a coach who, if assessed using similar signals, looks like an outlier among all coaches ever. Magic did not.

How exactly is Jordan being used sub-optimally beyond "well the team wasn't as good". Why would you assume the signals underrate MJ and not Magic?

What is the signal that favors Magic over Jordan in the first place? I'm asking because I don't know. The ON-OFF data doesn't favor Magic and the box score heavily favors Jordan. The team results despite a large disparity in talent also don't favor the Lakers much. Bulls had a +3.76 SRS (50 Pythagorean Wins) and the Lakers had a +4.81 SRS (56 Pythagorean Wins). And if Isiah didn't tweak his ankle, they would have likely lost to the same team in the playoffs too. As is, the Lakers beat the Pistons in 7 games while getting outscored by 2.6 points/game.

Anyways, talking about the signal being supressed vs. not is dubious when it's not clear what the signal is to begin with.

When you talk about track record of success with different coaches, you're talking about team success surely. However that's not an honest argument because while playing for coaches other than Phil, Jordan never had a competent supporting cast. Pippen started to come into his own in 1989-90 at the same time that Phil came in. None of those teams without Phil (1985-1989, 2002, 2003) were ever higher than 10th in preseason title odds.

[OhayoKD]

We obviously should try to look at how a player is impacting their team through adding wins, but the signal for the top 6 candidates I just named isn't as clear as it could be because we have to consider the context. That includes who they played with, and the coaching/way they were being deployed.

In what way did situation suppress Jordan's signals while Enabling Magic's?

The Bulls traded the only player who notably overlapped with Jordan in his third year and then geared the whole team around enabling Jordan to do what he did best. The Lakers shifted to an all-magic offense 8 seasons into his prime and he immediately demonstrated they should have done so earlier

Magic has a robust track-record of success with different coaches and distinct co-stars. Jordan does not. Jordan had a coach who, if assessed using similar signals, looks like an outlier among all coaches ever. Magic did not.

How exactly is Jordan being used sub-optimally beyond "well the team wasn't as good". Why would you assume the signals underrate MJ and not Magic?

What is the signal that favors Magic over Jordan in the first place? I'm asking because I don't know. The ON-OFF data doesn't favor Magic and the box score heavily favors Jordan.

These box-scores don't:

Spoiler:

But his style was still high-risk, high-reward, and his defensive error rates were on the high side, landing in the 17th percentile for the heart of his career. His highlights are impressive, but he bled value at times.

For instance, in the 1991 Finals, Jordan slowed the Magic Johnson train by picking him up in the backcourt, preventing him from building a head of steam. In the low-post, Chicago constantly doubled Magic, and although Jordan did a solid job bodying him up at times, he also struck out on a number of steal attempts:

...

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)


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


...



Distribution went

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

And this one prefers Charles Barkley:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Award

Formulas and inputs that suit Jordan producing outputs that suit Jordan is hardly a signal. On the other hand:

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

I don't particularly care for on/off but I know you do. Consequently, Jordan going from a comparable rs on/off to 3.8 makes it likely Magic has a general advantage this season on that front too.

The team results despite a large disparity in talent also don't favor the Lakers much. Bulls had a +3.76 SRS (50 Pythagorean Wins) and the Lakers had a +4.81 SRS (56 Pythagorean Wins). And if Isiah didn't tweak his ankle, they would have likely lost to the same team in the playoffs too. As is, the Lakers beat the Pistons in 7 games while getting outscored by 2.6 points/game.

Selective context once again. You know team was even more injured than Detroit allowing the Bulls to punch well above their weight statistically?
https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1988-nba-eastern-conference-first-round-cavaliers-vs-bulls.html

Eeking out wins against injured iterations of 80s Lebronto is overrated imho.

Jordan never had a competent supporting cast. Pippen started to come into his own in 1989-90 at the same time that Phil came in. None of those teams without Phil (1985-1989, 2002, 2003) were ever higher than 10th in preseason title odds.

To the extent perception is a useful proxy for reality, pre-season odds are a proxy for a team including Micheal Jordan, not the supporting cast in isolation, meaning your evidence here isn't really evidence. Maybe if rookie Jordan was lifting his teams the way rookie Magic or Hakeem did, those odds look significantly better. Maybe if Jordan carried his team to the finals in year 2, those odds look significantly better. Maybe if Jordan had managed a winning record and a series victory despite his team losing multiple key pieces to coke and injury, those odds look significantly better. Instead, Jordan opened his career finishing sub.500 3 years in a row and failing to register a single playoff win. No **** the odds for his teams weren't high.

I would also say the 88 Bulls qualify as competent. They were an elite cast defensively and improved upon a 25-30 win base by replacing a negative impact player(woodrige) with a positive one(Oakley), However, be it due to him failing to produce in the ways listed earlier, his proclivity for stat-chasing and throwing his teammates under the bus, or a mix of the two, the results were quite disappointing relative to how he several voters here seem to perceive him.

[IlikeSHAIguys]

1 - Magic
2 - Hakeem
3 - Bird
4 - Jordan
5 - Isiah Thomas

No one is really giving me a reason for the top two to change. 37 points is alot so if he's still a DPOY I'm kind of confused how he's not top 2 here. Maybe he should even be top 1 to be honest. Like why is defense suddenly not important any more when it was enough to vote Russell 1 100 times in a row.

Jordan and Bird stuff is mostly just people saying they're the best so I'll just go with the 7 extra wins.

I kind of want to put Isiah 3 because beating MJ Bird and almost Magic should mean something but his stats are a little meh and no one is even putting him 5. i think if he had his 87 stats I'd put him 3. It's kinda wierd to me how everyone is fine with Magic being the best just off playmaking but people aren't fine with Isiah. Like, are Isiah assists also fake too? I'm not saying they can't be but someone proving it would be cool

Defensive Player of the Year

1 - Hakeem
2 - Eaton
3 - Bill Laimbeer

Offensive Player of the Year

1 - Magic
2 - Bird
3 - Jordan

[Djoker]

These box-scores don't:

Spoiler:

But his style was still high-risk, high-reward, and his defensive error rates were on the high side, landing in the 17th percentile for the heart of his career. His highlights are impressive, but he bled value at times.

For instance, in the 1991 Finals, Jordan slowed the Magic Johnson train by picking him up in the backcourt, preventing him from building a head of steam. In the low-post, Chicago constantly doubled Magic, and although Jordan did a solid job bodying him up at times, he also struck out on a number of steal attempts:

...

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)


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


...



Distribution went

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

And this one prefers Charles Barkley:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Award

Formulas and inputs that suit Jordan producing outputs that suit Jordan is hardly a signal. On the other hand:

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

I don't particularly care for on/off but I know you do. Consequently, Jordan going from a comparable rs on/off to 3.8 makes it likely Magic has a general advantage this season on that front too.

What box scores? That's tracking data with a handful of possessions from two games. One from Magic in 1991 which is hardly relevant to this thread and another is 40 possessions from Game 3 of the Pistons series. The original author of that post rightfully pointed out that 40 possessions is a tiny sample. Let's move on.

Box score data HEAVILY favors MJ. ON-OFF is pretty even for those who care.

The team results despite a large disparity in talent also don't favor the Lakers much. Bulls had a +3.76 SRS (50 Pythagorean Wins) and the Lakers had a +4.81 SRS (56 Pythagorean Wins). And if Isiah didn't tweak his ankle, they would have likely lost to the same team in the playoffs too. As is, the Lakers beat the Pistons in 7 games while getting outscored by 2.6 points/game.

Selective context once again. You know team was even more injured than Detroit allowing the Bulls to punch well above their weight statistically?
https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1988-nba-eastern-conference-first-round-cavaliers-vs-bulls.html

Eeking out wins against injured iterations of 80s Lebronto is overrated imho.

Ok. It still doesn't change that the Bulls did not much worse than the Lakers with an infinitely worse supporting cast.

Jordan never had a competent supporting cast. Pippen started to come into his own in 1989-90 at the same time that Phil came in. None of those teams without Phil (1985-1989, 2002, 2003) were ever higher than 10th in preseason title odds.

To the extent perception is a useful proxy for reality, pre-season odds are a proxy for a team including Micheal Jordan, not the supporting cast in isolation, meaning your evidence here isn't really evidence. Maybe if rookie Jordan was lifting his teams the way rookie Magic or Hakeem did, those odds look significantly better. Maybe if Jordan carried his team to the finals in year 2, those odds look significantly better. Maybe if Jordan had managed a winning record and a series victory despite his team losing multiple key pieces to coke and injury, those odds look significantly better. Instead, Jordan opened his career finishing sub.500 3 years in a row and failing to register a single playoff win. No **** the odds for his teams weren't high.

I would also say the 88 Bulls qualify as competent. They were an elite cast defensively and improved upon a 25-30 win base by replacing a negative impact player(woodrige) with a positive one(Oakley), However, be it due to him failing to produce in the ways listed earlier, his proclivity for stat-chasing and throwing his teammates under the bus, or a mix of the two, the results were quite disappointing relative to how he several voters here seem to perceive him.

Except we do have data for many of those teams without Jordan. In 1983-84 before Jordan ever came in, the Bulls had a -5.2 MOV which is 28 Pythagorean Wins (PW). In 1985-86 in the 64 games without Jordan, they were -3.86 MOV which is 30 PW. Those two samples give us a pretty big clue that the 1985-1987 Bulls' casts were nowhere near good enough to be contenders. In fact, in leagues with ~20 teams, 30 PW and below is close to league worst level. If we use WOWY to say that the 1993-94 Bulls were a top 10 team in the league without MJ, then we should also acknowledge that the early Bulls teams were bottom-feeders without MJ. Ditto with the Wizards. In 2000-01 before MJ came on, they had a -6.67 MOV which is 23 PW and then in 2003-04 after MJ came on, they had a -5.63 MOV which is 25 PW.

The 1988 Bulls were +5000 in title odds which was 16th in the league. Then the 1989 Bulls were +2000 in title odds which was 10th in the league. Calling the results in 1988 disappointing is weird considering they greatly overachieved expectations. In fact, in 1988 they overachieved the 1989 title expectations and that's with an improved Pippen and Grant who were now in their second seasons.

[OhayoKD]

These box-scores don't:

Spoiler:

But his style was still high-risk, high-reward, and his defensive error rates were on the high side, landing in the 17th percentile for the heart of his career. His highlights are impressive, but he bled value at times.

For instance, in the 1991 Finals, Jordan slowed the Magic Johnson train by picking him up in the backcourt, preventing him from building a head of steam. In the low-post, Chicago constantly doubled Magic, and although Jordan did a solid job bodying him up at times, he also struck out on a number of steal attempts:

...

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)


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


...



Distribution went

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

And this one prefers Charles Barkley:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Award

Formulas and inputs that suit Jordan producing outputs that suit Jordan is hardly a signal. On the other hand:

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

I don't particularly care for on/off but I know you do. Consequently, Jordan going from a comparable rs on/off to 3.8 makes it likely Magic has a general advantage this season on that front too.

What box scores? That's tracking data with a handful of possessions from two games.

They're the same type of data. Humans choose what to count and then put weights on what they've counted, That decades were spent enshrining a narrow set of approaches as objectively valuable does not magically give the formulas and inputs you prefer inherent value and pretending it does would get you discredited in any space with an ounce of serious academic rigor.

Beyond the extent you can justify the approach or weightings vs approaches/weightings that favor alternative players, your formulas are not legitimate evidence.

IBM of course is not a few games, Lebronny's tracking covers multiple years of full playoff runs. If sample size is the issue, then the solution is to increase the sample, not keep reinforcing a set of priors that have never been seriously tested because they produce outputs you find convenient.

On/off is even in the regular-season and then it collapses for Jordan. And Magic is clearly advantaged in WOWY (something you cleverly side-stepped by throwing in games Magic did not play with his "with")

The team results despite a large disparity in talent also don't favor the Lakers much. Bulls had a +3.76 SRS (50 Pythagorean Wins) and the Lakers had a +4.81 SRS (56 Pythagorean Wins). And if Isiah didn't tweak his ankle, they would have likely lost to the same team in the playoffs too. As is, the Lakers beat the Pistons in 7 games while getting outscored by 2.6 points/game.

Selective context once again. You know team was even more injured than Detroit allowing the Bulls to punch well above their weight statistically?
https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1988-nba-eastern-conference-first-round-cavaliers-vs-bulls.html

Eeking out wins against injured iterations of 80s Lebronto is overrated imho.

Ok. It still doesn't change that the Bulls did not much worse than the Lakers with an infinitely worse supporting cast.

Overall? No. Compared to the Lakers with Magic? The Lakers posted a net-rating of +7.2 more than doubling Chicago's 3.5 with Jordan. The reason they weren't "much better" is because they collapsed to -3.8 without Magic in the 10 games he missed. A convenient data-point to ignore when arguing Magic had "infinitely more talent" I guess.

Jordan never had a competent supporting cast. Pippen started to come into his own in 1989-90 at the same time that Phil came in. None of those teams without Phil (1985-1989, 2002, 2003) were ever higher than 10th in preseason title odds.

To the extent perception is a useful proxy for reality, pre-season odds are a proxy for a team including Micheal Jordan, not the supporting cast in isolation, meaning your evidence here isn't really evidence. Maybe if rookie Jordan was lifting his teams the way rookie Magic or Hakeem did, those odds look significantly better. Maybe if Jordan carried his team to the finals in year 2, those odds look significantly better. Maybe if Jordan had managed a winning record and a series victory despite his team losing multiple key pieces to coke and injury, those odds look significantly better. Instead, Jordan opened his career finishing sub.500 3 years in a row and failing to register a single playoff win. No **** the odds for his teams weren't high.

I would also say the 88 Bulls qualify as competent. They were an elite cast defensively and improved upon a 25-30 win base by replacing a negative impact player(woodrige) with a positive one(Oakley), However, be it due to him failing to produce in the ways listed earlier, his proclivity for stat-chasing and throwing his teammates under the bus, or a mix of the two, the results were quite disappointing relative to how he several voters here seem to perceive him.

Except we do have data for many of those teams without Jordan. In 1983-84 before Jordan ever came in, the Bulls had a -5.2 MOV which is 28 Pythagorean Wins (PW). In 1985-86 in the 64 games without Jordan, they were -3.86 MOV which is 30 PW. Those two samples give us a pretty big clue that the 1985-1987 Bulls' casts were nowhere near good enough to be contenders.

Hakeem Olajuwon led a much more legitimate contender with a cast that went -4.3 from 84-87. Even if for some reason I accept the Bulls got no better there are plenty of examples of players competing with that sort of support, and even a few examples of players winning. And there are certainly an abundance of examples of players Jordan-aged joining those sorts of teams and seeing much better immediate returns, including Jordan's own draft-mate. who led a team much closer to the Bulls (with him playing the games) than the Bulls were to the Lakers (with Magic playing the games).

It also so happens 1988 Magic Johnson is one of those few examples of a player winning with a team that was very bad without him. As someone who thinks context should be applied consistently, not simply when it suits one's prior, I will note that the Lakers missed Micheal Cooper(the guy Jordan called a fraud for not stat-padding defensively like he did). Every other cog of their rotation played all 10 games rendering it a uniquely clean sample as well as one of the most impressive signals of the era(more impressive than any of Jordan's at any rate).

I'd say "dissapointing" is the right word there. That expectations were so low that replicating the results two of his less acclaimed contemporaries was deemed near-impossible is as much of an indictment on Jordan as it is on his teammates.

[One_and_Done]

For the first 8 yrs of his career Hakeem averaged 29.7pp100, and 2.4ap100 at 553 TS%. From 93 to 95 Hakeem averaged 34.3pp100 and 4.5ap100 at 568 TS%. Despite being older, and no longer in his athletic prime, his numbers shot up. The team's success also massively spiked.

You can attribute that to Rudy of you like, it's a convenient narrative since he arrived at the same time, but I don't buy that at all. Firstly, Fitch and Cheney were both decent coaches. Cheney won COY while coaching Hakeem, while Fitch had coached the Bird Celtics. Was Bird being 'held back' by Fitch? I certainly find it hard to believe Fitch, coach of the pass heavy Celtics, didn't want Hakeem to be better at passing out of double teams.

Nobody seems to have had a problem with how Hakeem was used when he made the 1986 finals, so the coaching is being selectively criticised here.

The sports media watched Hakeem pre-93, and saw him match up with other centers of his generation. They did not even perceive Hakeem to be the best center of his era, never mind better than the likes of Bird, Magic or Jordan. Heck, the MVP voting shows they thought he wasn't even as good as Charles. The stats back that up. I have seen threads where people compare the head to head stats of Hakeem vs D.Rob, and the results and stats come out surprisingly well for D.Rob. That gets forgotten in the visuals of him dream shaking D.Rob one year.

[penbeast0]

DRob was a better player before his injury . . . in the regular season. Playoff Riser Hakeem is, however, an impressive thing over a spread of years.

[One_and_Done]

DRob was a better player before his injury . . . in the regular season. Playoff Riser Hakeem is, however, an impressive thing over a spread of years.

Playoff Hakeem who lost with HCA to the 41 win Jazz led by Adrian Dantley, and the 39 win Dale Ellis Sonics. They also lost four other times in the 1st round before 92 including to the 1988 Mavs, and the 47 win Dale Ellis Sonics. In 92 he missed the playoffs completely, and even his 2 titles were bookended by 2 losses to the Gary Payton Sonics because they used a defence that pushed the limits of illegal D rules which Hakeem couldn't handle (note that illegal D hasn't existed for like 25 years).

Hardly an impressive playoff record. Or maybe you meant he posted empty stats in losing efforts. Not that Hakeem's stats were ever empty, but they certainly have to be viewed with scepticism when you're losing to 39 and 41 win teams with HCA.

[OhayoKD]

For the first 8 yrs of his career Hakeem averaged 29.7pp100, and 2.4ap100 at 553 TS%. From 93 to 95 Hakeem averaged 34.3pp100 and 4.5ap100 at 568 TS%. Despite being older, and no longer in his athletic prime, his numbers shot up. The team's success also massively spiked.

You can attribute that to Rudy of you like, it's a convenient narrative since he arrived at the same time, but I don't buy that at all. Firstly, Fitch and Cheney were both decent coaches. Cheney won COY while coaching Hakeem, while Fitch had coached the Bird Celtics. Was Bird being 'held back' by Fitch? I certainly find it hard to believe Fitch, coach of the pass heavy Celtics, didn't want Hakeem to be better at passing out of double teams.

Nobody seems to have had a problem with how Hakeem was used when he made the 1986 finals, so the coaching is being selectively criticised here..

multiple posters pointed out Hakeem was likely not being optimised in the 86 thread, but knowing that would require you to engage with what people are actually saying and not what you imagine them to say

[AEnigma]

For the first 8 yrs of his career Hakeem averaged 29.7pp100, and 2.4ap100 at 553 TS%. From 93 to 95 Hakeem averaged 34.3pp100 and 4.5ap100 at 568 TS%. Despite being older, and no longer in his athletic prime, his numbers shot up. The team's success also massively spiked.

1986-91 Postseason Hakeem: 34.4 points per 100 possessions on 58.9% true shooting
1993-97 Postseason Hakeem: 35 points per 100 possessions on 57.2% true shooting

You are also disregarding all defensive considerations, but I suppose I should expect some citation to DPoY voting as proof that he peaked on that end in 1993/94 too.

You can attribute that to Rudy of you like, it's a convenient narrative since he arrived at the same time, but I don't buy that at all.

Of course not, that would require you look at how the teams played.

Firstly, Fitch and Cheney were both decent coaches. Cheney won COY while coaching Hakeem,

Unserious.

while Fitch had coached the Bird Celtics. Was Bird being 'held back' by Fitch? I certainly find it hard to believe Fitch, coach of the pass heavy Celtics,

Oh, so Parish and McHale and Maxwell were all big parts of that “pass heavy” offence?

didn't want Hakeem to be better at passing out of double teams.

You can speculate about what he wanted, but the reality is one coach made it a point of emphasis and the other did not.

Nobody seems to have had a problem with how Hakeem was used when he made the 1986 finals, so the coaching is being selectively criticised here.

“They made the Finals ergo the coaching was flawless.”

The sports media watched Hakeem pre-93, and saw him match up with other centers of his generation. They did not even perceive Hakeem to be the best center of his era,

Laughably wrong.

never mind better than the likes of Bird, Magic or Jordan. Heck, the MVP voting shows they thought he wasn't even as good as Charles.

And that of course is why you base all your player assessments off MVP voting and public perception.

The stats back that up.

They do? Oh, our mistake. Did not realise “the stats” were so clear cut.

I have seen threads where people compare the head to head stats of Hakeem vs D.Rob, and the results and stats come out surprisingly well for D.Rob. That gets forgotten in the visuals of him dream shaking D.Rob one year.

And massively outperforming Robinson in any games which actually mattered.