Retro POY '98-99 (Voting Complete)

[drza]

Just got back, still buried at work, not able to fully invest in this one like I'd like. I've read the thread and gotten the gist of the main arguments, and so far these are my thoughts:

1) I think Robinson should be getting more love. For all intents and purposes he played as well as Duncan, just fewer minutes. I don't begrudge Duncan his standing, but I think DRob should be in the top-5 with him

2) No real clear choice for #1 to me. Shaq wins the advanced stats that are still available in the regular season, but Duncan seemed to overtake him in the playoffs (and those stats lost a lot of luster once I no longer had +/- to balance them out). Duncan definitely had more help next to Robinson, but it's hard for me to decry Shaq's teammates as untalented when essentially the same squad touched off a 3-peat the next season. Yeah, Kobe wasn't what he'd be, but he was still a 20 ppg wing and an All Star by this point in his career, let alone guys like Rice or (earlier in the season) Jones. Still thinking.

3) Malone and Mourning seem like the obvious ones to round out my top-5, though there are still others like Kidd, Hill, KG, AI that I'll look at too.

[ronnymac2]

Optimism Prime- Yes, but Shaq's greater ability to get to the line means more foul trouble for opposing starting bigs, the ability to control pace at leisure depending on matchups, the ability to slow the game down and get your defense set, and generally a physical toll on the opposition, which is nice come the fourth quarter.

[Optimism Prime]

Optimism Prime- Yes, but Shaq's greater ability to get to the line means more foul trouble for opposing starting bigs, the ability to control pace at leisure depending on matchups, the ability to slow the game down and get your defense set, and generally a physical toll on the opposition, which is nice come the fourth quarter.

Okay, but... they didn't slow the pace down, they had the second-highest pace (and FTA, no surprise there). Team-wise, there was a .2 difference in FT/FGA for the Lakers (.261) and Spurs (.259). So... they had that ability, but did they actually use it? Did they take advantage of it?

[ronnymac2]

Gongxi- I think everybody's point about the minutes is that you are essentially penalizing Duncan for playing more basketball. I understand the logic of your production idea here, but Duncan staying on the court longer means his effects on the game are being produced for four extra minutes as well...it isn't all just about the raw production.

Now, I personally think Shaq played enough where this isn't a big issue. It isn't like he was a 30 mpg player. But Tim gets a slight edge in the minutes per game.



BTW, I'm not saying Duncan is the wrong choice. I'm just arguing that Duncan isn't the right choice simply based on the second round series and the Finals MVP. Those aren't good reasons to choose Duncan over O'neal. Duncan didn't outplay O'neal. Shaq clearly got the best of a very good Robinson (who was aided by Duncan), and Duncan obliterated Horry/Reid/Fox. Spurs beat the Lakers.

No to play a what-if scenario, but if Duncan got 24-17 against NY in the finals, what the hell is Shaq going to put up against Larry Johnson (with back problems) and the young, skinny PF-version of Marcus Camby? He might be putting up 38-17 a year earlier.

[Doctor MJ]

It means his production was off the charts. Like...far and away. When someone scores more (5 more points a game is nothing to scoff at) and does it much more efficiently (58% to 54% TS) in less time on the court, that's pretty important. If some guy scored 20ppg in 20mpg, that's great, but that's not really applicable to what we're talking about. He didn't just do better per minute, he did better per game...in less minutes. He averaged a rebound less, sure. He also got roughly the same amount of assists.

We get the whole "but he produced more total" aspect - whether or not we agree with the conclusion is different, but if you believe it, then you should pick Shaq. The "in less time" is the part that's so bizarre. You're clearly impressed by his per minute play and factoring that in to your judgment, or at least think it's something that my impress others, but it's basically totally irrelevant in a discussion about total production.

[ronnymac2]

Optimism Prime- Yes, but Shaq's greater ability to get to the line means more foul trouble for opposing starting bigs, the ability to control pace at leisure depending on matchups, the ability to slow the game down and get your defense set, and generally a physical toll on the opposition, which is nice come the fourth quarter.

Okay, but... they didn't slow the pace down, they had the second-highest pace (and FTA, no surprise there). Team-wise, there was a .2 difference in FT/FGA for the Lakers (.261) and Spurs (.259). So... they had that ability, but did they actually use it? Did they take advantage of it?

They did not take advantage of it, but that is bound to happen when you have a poor coach, Glen Rice and a bunch of other shooters who aren't specially good at slashing, and only a young Kobe Bryant. David Robinson draws a lot of fouls during the regular season, so that kind of explains how the Spurs were close in FT/FGA (and if it's FT/FGA, then Shaq's poor convert rate at the line hurts that stat as well.....a black mark on Shaq, but that doesn't explain away Shaq's ability to get to the line a crap load).

[Doctor MJ]

but it's hard for me to decry Shaq's teammates as untalented when essentially the same squad touched off a 3-peat the next season. Yeah, Kobe wasn't what he'd be, but he was still a 20 ppg wing and an All Star by this point in his career, let alone guys like Rice or (earlier in the season) Jones. Still thinking.

I think people also need to look at the performance of the '97-98 Lakers. That team went 61-21 (significantly better than the '98-99 Lakers) with Shaq missing 20+ games. Can anyone really call the '98-99 supporting cast weak when the '97-98 supporting cast was undeniably very strong?

[ronnymac2]

^^^I'd call it talented. Not strong though.

[Sedale Threatt]

1. Duncan.
2. Shaq.

I think it breaks down pretty neatly -- Shaq was better on offense by about the same margin as Duncan was better on defense. The tie-breaker? Playoffs.

Shaq dominated Houston (and Olajuwon) before turning in a pretty pedestrian series against the Spurs. Granted, he was going up against an all-time defense tailor-made to stop him, but still -- he didn't perform, and his team got rolled.

Duncan, on the other hand, dominated the Lakers, was pretty average against Portland, then spanked the admittedly over-matched Knicks in the Finals. Not an epic run, to be sure, but better than Shaq's.

3. Malone. Pretty clear-cut to me that he was a slot below Shaq and Duncan at this stage of his career. Plus, he took a pretty big dive in the playoffs, capped by a 3-for-16 in the season-ender against Portland. That said, still a great player who excelled on both ends.

4. Mourning. Pretty much identical to what he did in 00, minus the injury to Duncan and another year of slippage for the Mailman. I feel a lot more comfortable with him in the 4/5 range than 2/3. Not quite a superstar, but dominant defense with 20/11 presents a pretty awesome package.

5. Hill. Thought about Payton and Kidd here, but Grant wins out. Kidd probably had his best all-around season, still wasn't as good as Grant. Payton was pretty close to the previous year, where I voted him third, but I just thought Hill was a bit better -- solid defense with great all-around play.

[lorak]

I definitely think Robinson should get more love. His 1999 version was basically the same as in earlier seasons. He only shot less (several FGA less and 2-3 FTA less), but not because he can’t anymore, but because he sacrificed his stats for Duncan. Every other aspect of his game was as good as before injury in 1997 – elite defense (88 DRtg is the best of all time; he played only 32 MPG but still averaged amazing for a center 1.4 STL and of course many blocks – 2.4), very good rebounding, efficient scorer, very good passer for big man. Advanced stats we have for that season also like him very much: 3rd in PER, 4th in WS and 1st in WS/48 (in playoffs he also was very good: 9th in PER, 2nd in WS and 3rd in WS/48 with amazing 87 DRtg – better than Duncan).

My votes:
1. Duncan
2. Robinson
3. Shaq
4. Malone
5. Mourning (however if I’ll see good argument for Kidd or Hill I would change my mind here)

EDIT
I changed my mind about Shaq, because of good arguments against him.

[Doctor MJ]

^^^I'd call it talented. Not strong though.

I'd like to hear more thoughts from you (or others) on this. I get the feeling people see this as a supporting cast that finally got great in '99-00, but they sure look like they were doing well in '97-98 with limited Shaq time.

[Sedale Threatt]

but it's hard for me to decry Shaq's teammates as untalented when essentially the same squad touched off a 3-peat the next season. Yeah, Kobe wasn't what he'd be, but he was still a 20 ppg wing and an All Star by this point in his career, let alone guys like Rice or (earlier in the season) Jones. Still thinking.

I think people also need to look at the performance of the '97-98 Lakers. That team went 61-21 (significantly better than the '98-99 Lakers) with Shaq missing 20+ games. Can anyone really call the '98-99 supporting cast weak when the '97-98 supporting cast was undeniably very strong?

Talent was never the issue. Those teams were extremely gifted; they just didn't come together. Too much immaturity, not enough accountability or leadership, really weak coaching.

It was like a pick-up team. When the going got tough, they crumbled every single time.

The 99 team in particular just never had a chance to gell, what with the Rice trade and Harris getting sacked, not to mention the lack of practice time afforded by the strike schedule.

In comparison, the 3-peat teams weren't as talented, but they were much tougher.

Jackson commanded respect, Shaq matured (sort of), Kobe blossomed, veterans like Harper and Green set a good example, hard-working pros like Fish and Fox got bigger roles.

From an intangible standpoint, it was night and day.

[Sedale Threatt]

Duncan didn't outplay O'neal.

No, but who played better?

[ronnymac2]

I'm going to liken this to the 2005 and 2006 Miami Heat. The poster Tim Hardaway has explained this a little bit.

I always thought that the 2005 Heat (by the end of the season and into the PO's with Wade's maturation and improvement) were a better team when healthy and complete than the 2006 Heat. The 05 Heat lost because when one or both of their stars got hurt, they couldn't create offense well, especially against good defenses (detroit). So in the 06 off-season, Riley got players who he thought were better at creating their own shot independent of O'neal and Wade. Walker and Williams were more creative than Damon Jones and Eddie Jones, and James Posey could slash some from the wing.

The 06 team were more talented offensively and could withstand injury to their important players. I guess in a way that makes the relative value of Wade and O'neal go down a bit for the team.

Now, we go to the Lakers situation. In the late 90's they have offensive talent. They can withstand injury to their star player- O'neal. But in a playoff situation, even with Shaq, they are a vastly inferior team to a healthy 2000-2002 Laker team.

That said, the 2000-2002 team can't withstand injury to their star(s) as well as the offensively talented 98 team. But when the stars are healthy, they are the better team. The 00-02 teams had a better supporting cast ito the structure around Shaq. It was more around Shaq. I believe the Lakers record without Shaq during that time wasn't too hot. That sort of explains things.

I don't know. It's kind of theory I guess. That's how I see it.

[Silver Bullet]

Also, Shaq's "huge advantage" at the free throw line got him, on average, .6 ppg more than Duncan.

He went to the line more because that's how you slow down Shaq... why is this being trumpeted as a good thing?

ortg is 9 pts better (a massive difference and his Drtg is 102 - which is not all that bad.

And while Shaq's DRTG was 102, and that's not bad... it's also a worse mark than Duncan has ever posted. Duncan's this season was 91.

Duncan: ORTG: 106; DRTG: 91.
Shaq: ORTG: 115; DRTG: 102.

Put another way--yes, Shaq had a massive difference in offensive rating which was SMALLER THAN the difference in defensive rating...

YEs, but both offensive rating and defensive rating have a very high correlation with your team.

Put Shaq on the Spurs and Duncan on the Lakers - and it is very likely that Shaq has the better Drtg.

[ronnymac2]

Duncan didn't outplay O'neal.

No, but who played better?

Who played better in this scenario doesn't necessarily answer the question "who was the better player?".

Rondo vs. Lebron....who played better?

[Sedale Threatt]

Don't you think this comparison is a little more apt, considering Shaq and Duncan were the best players for their respective teams, and fairly comparable in terms of responsibility and role?

(Rondo, BTW)

[ElGee]

Just got back, still buried at work, not able to fully invest in this one like I'd like. I've read the thread and gotten the gist of the main arguments, and so far these are my thoughts:

1) I think Robinson should be getting more love. For all intents and purposes he played as well as Duncan, just fewer minutes. I don't begrudge Duncan his standing, but I think DRob should be in the top-5 with him

Well, he should be getting more love...but not in the top 5 sense. Duncan was clearly the better player. It was Duncan's jump in play after the start of the season that coincided with San Antonio finishing 46-7.

Robinson had a massive contribution on defense - equal to Duncan's perhaps. But he completely deferred to Duncan offensively, taking just 11 shots per game. He only played 32 minutes a night. Robinson was still very good in 1999, but it was clearly Duncan's team and he was clearly the primary reason for their dominance.

In the playoffs, they went to Duncan late and often and he made a number of key baskets and plays down the stretch of critical games. Robinson was really a co-defensive anchor and at best, a secondary offensive option. He might crack my top 10, but top 5 seems like a stretch.

[ElGee]

Kobe didn't even make the all-star team in 99.

He was all-nba though, and they had one of those.

[Doctor MJ]

Duncan didn't outplay O'neal.

No, but who played better?

Who played better in this scenario doesn't necessarily answer the question "who was the better player?".

Rondo vs. Lebron....who played better?

I really think people exaggerate how bad LeBron played. Does anyone think that if LeBron had a supporting cast as good as Rondo's, and Rondo had one as good as LeBron's, Rondo would have gotten closer to the win?