Retro POY '95-96 (Voting Complete)

[lorak]

If Robinson didn't get owned, melt down or any other phrase you want to come up with to describe a good old-fashioned ass-kicking in 95,

23.8 PPG, .553 TS%, 11.3 RPG, 2.7 APG, 1.5 SPG, 2.2 BPG

Sure, he was owned….

[lorak]

You should check Ewing’s FG%.

This is like two women trying to decide who has the uglier baby. When one looks like Steve Buscemi and the other like Clint Howard, what the hell difference does it make?

Points per game is pure, basic stat. It depends on many thing like for example pace. That’s why in this case it’s better to look at FG% (or any other metric which not depends on pace or minutes played).

Besides Kaima, you are missing my point: Robinson drop off in PS, but he still was very good playoff player. His production was at Garnett or Duncan level and people like you penalize him for that. It's not fair.

[semi-sentient]

I watched every single minute of those 6 games, and I can tell you that Payton wasn't always on Jordan and also had a couple of stupid fouls. Jordan was off in two of the last 3 games with his shooting, he missed a couple of wide open shots. Yes, Payton done a great job on him, but imho he gets a bit too much credit for Jordan's two bad shooting nights.

I don't think he's getting too much credit. Payton was one of the few guards that could give Jordan problems, and IMO, he backed up his DPOY award by slowing Jordan down -- which is a difficult thing to do. Of course Jordan did miss some open shots, but all players do. That doesn't mean that Payton didn't still play very good defense on him.

I've only watched bits and pieces of that series recently, so from what I recall they put Payton more on Jordan after game 2. In game 4, I believe he guarded him almost exclusively and they were actually matched up with each other since Harper was hurting.

Kemp actually scored 5 points per game more than Payton on a much better efficiency.

You sure about that? Kemp scored .3 more points in the regular season and .2 more in the post-season. His efficiency was definitely insane, but Payton's was really good as well. I always look at efficiency and factor in positional differences, so while Kemp still has a big advantage, I think it's understandable. Still, it is an advantage, but that's overshadowed by Payton's play-making.

It were also "only" 7 assists per game.

7.5

That's not a mind-boggling number for a PG, but it's pretty good considering he was still top 10 in the league.

Btw: Jordan faced great defensive teams in the playoffs before like the Pistons or the Knicks. Sidney Moncrief was also a DPOY as Jordan faced him in the playoffs.

Just out of curiosity, are there any box scores available for Jordan's post-season games against the Bad Boy Pistons of the late 80's? I've always been curious as to what Jordan's numbers looked like against them in comparison to the others, particularly when they were at their peak defensively.

He did play pretty good against the Knicks in 1992 when they became a good defensive team, but his series against them in 1993 consisted of 2 great games with a couple of stinkers and mediocre (at best) performances mixed in. He shot pretty poorly in that series (outside of that 50+ point game), but he does get somewhat of a break for doing other things well.

[Sedale Threatt]

If Robinson didn't get owned, melt down or any other phrase you want to come up with to describe a good old-fashioned ass-kicking in 95,

23.8 PPG, .553 TS%, 11.3 RPG, 2.7 APG, 1.5 SPG, 2.2 BPG

Sure, he was owned….

Compared to:

35.3 PPG, .598 TS%, 12.5 RPG, 5.0 APG, 1.3 SPG, 4.2 BPG

Dream killed him in every category but steals, his production dropped from the RS in every category but rebounding, while his team blew a series in which they were favored. How can you possible construe this as anything but a complete ass kicking?

[Sedale Threatt]

His production was at Garnett or Duncan level and people like you penalize him for that. It's not fair.

Blame David. He set his own bar, then repeatedly failed to reach it when it got down to brass tacks.

[Gongxi]

Just for posterity's sake, I'm going to say that throughout this thing I'm going mostly by on-court production, with games in December mattering as much as games in March, and games in the playoffs meaning only about 50% more than games in the regular season. Which is to say: if you play 20 playoff games and 82 regular season games, your regular season still accounts for roughly 2/3rds of where I'm placing you. Why? Because a 20 game sample size pales in comparison to 82 or, together, 102 games.

Also, I don't much care about how well your team did. It's basketball, not ping pong- one player can't dictate whether an entire team wins or loses.

1- Michael Jordan
2- David Robinson
3- Karl Malone
4- Penny Hardaway
5- Hakeem Olajuwon

#1 and #2 were no-brainers. #3 through #5 (and beyond) were tougher, Malone had a great regular season (26/10/4, 58% TS), and a mediocre postseason (27/10/4, 50% TS). Hardaway...well his praises have been sung, we get it.

Olajuwon, Payton, and Barkley are all very close for me. That said, other than being on a better team, is Payton better than the year before or year after? No. Would those years have been good enough to garner a top 5 vote if it happened in this year? Probably not. So why would I vote for him here? Because his team advanced? Because he was recognized as the best defensive player, although he wasn't really any better or any worse than any other season of his prime? Sorry, Gary.

Barkley played comparably to Olajuwon in the regular season, although a little worse. He played much better than Hakeem in the playoffs, but the sample size was very small. Hakeem missed 10 games in the regular season, but Barkley missed 11. See ya Chuck. Hakeem at #5 for me.

[Sedale Threatt]

Anyway, I just noticed this "debate" -- if you can call it that -- is a year too early. Back to the task at hand...

I do have to say, as much as I recognize Olajuwon's dominance in this particular matchup, and during the mid 90s in general, I never cease to be amazed at the lengths bastillon goes to defend him.

[Gongxi]

His production was at Garnett or Duncan level and people like you penalize him for that. It's not fair.

Blame David. He set his own bar, then repeatedly failed to reach it when it got down to brass tacks.

Weren't you comparing players to themselves instead of other players in another year of this project? Why do you keep doing that?

[ItsMillerTime]

My rankings

1. Jordan
2. Robinson
3. Payton - Felt he had the best case of anyone to go at the 3 spot. Controlled the Soncis offense well, played stellar D (did some of the best work on Jordan ive seen), and his Sonics team had a terrific season
4. Penny Hardaway - Really carried the Magic while Shaq was injured. Very nice postseason as well.
5. Karl Malone - Almost went with Hakeem here, but Malone had a near equal RS, better PS, and more team success.

HM: Pippen, Kemp, Hakeem, Stockton

[Sedale Threatt]

His production was at Garnett or Duncan level and people like you penalize him for that. It's not fair.

Blame David. He set his own bar, then repeatedly failed to reach it when it got down to brass tacks.

Weren't you comparing players to themselves instead of other players in another year of this project? Why do you keep doing that?

I think you're referring to the LeBron debate for this year. I don't see how you can't hold a player to a certain standard, especially when he's the one setting it. Personally, I can't get overly excited about a guy whose performance drops at a key moment, especially when it heavily influences a playoff ouster.

[Gongxi]

When you're comparing them to the standards of others, it's nonsensical to compare them to themselves. If I usually bowl a 110 and I go out and get a 130, I don't "beat" my friend who usually bowls a 170 but only bowled a 150.

We don't handicap when comparing players. If we do, it defeats the whole point.

[lorak]

His production was at Garnett or Duncan level and people like you penalize him for that. It's not fair.

Blame David. He set his own bar, then repeatedly failed to reach it when it got down to brass tacks.

I don’t understand. We evaluate what actually happened, at what level player played or what?
Because I agree that Robinson’s productions doped off in playoffs. However that don’t change fact that he still played at very high level and in some strange way some people penalize him for that. I really don’t understand that logic.

If Robinson didn't get owned, melt down or any other phrase you want to come up with to describe a good old-fashioned ass-kicking in 95,

23.8 PPG, .553 TS%, 11.3 RPG, 2.7 APG, 1.5 SPG, 2.2 BPG

Sure, he was owned….

Compared to:

35.3 PPG, .598 TS%, 12.5 RPG, 5.0 APG, 1.3 SPG, 4.2 BPG

Dream killed him in every category but steals, his production dropped from the RS in every category but rebounding, while his team blew a series in which they were favored. How can you possible construe this as anything but a complete ass kicking?

Because it’s never one on one game. Spurs lost, not only Robinson. Whole team played bad and it wasn’t only Robinson’s fault. Hakeem’s stats were amazing, but he played the best ball of his life and nobody could stop him. Year earlier far better defensive team than Spurs 1995 can’t do much against Olajuwon. In 1995 Robinson had to defend him alone, in 1994 entire Knicks defense was focused on Olajuwon and he was defended by Ewing, Oakley or Mason, but they can’t do much, he still played very well.

[Baller 24]

My Vote:

1) Michael Jordan
2) David Robinson
3) Penny Hardaway
4) Karl Malone
5) Gary Payton

HM: Olajuwon, Pippen

[Sedale Threatt]

When you're comparing them to the standards of others, it's nonsensical to compare them to themselves. If I usually bowl a 110 and I go out and get a 130, I don't "beat" my friend who usually bowls a 170 but only bowled a 150.

We don't handicap when comparing players. If we do, it defeats the whole point.

What do you mean "we"? You do it your way, I'll do it mine. Compared to some of the isht I've seen in this project, I think it's pretty reasonable.

Besides, that scenario doesn't fit in this particular instance. The poster in question was complaining why Robinson gets ripped when he was still putting up 20/10 in the playoffs, ignoring the fact that this was still below his typical level of production, while getting significantly outplayed head-up in playoff defeats.

If he was dipping, but still outproducing his man and his team was winning, that's tolerable. But that wasn't the case, was it?

[Gongxi]

But if he's still playing elite basketball, what's the difference?

[Baller 24]

I don’t understand. We evaluate what actually happened, at what level player played or what?
Because I agree that Robinson’s productions doped off in playoffs. However that don’t change fact that he still played at very high level and in some strange way some people penalize him for that. I really don’t understand that logic.

The point he's trying to make is that all greats once the post-season hits either increase in production or play at pretty much the same level, Robinson's although it was great, goes down in the playoffs, there's absolutely no reason for a player that great who did it throughout a span of an 82 game season's production to regress at a clear level below what his standards are. When you set the bar really high, and you don't show up for it in the biggest stage of your career in the playoffs, you're obviously going to get and deserve some major criticism.

[Gongxi]

Did I miss a "Why don't we just rank them by PER and save time?" post by semi-sentient? If so, why not just rank the best player(s) on the best teams and assume that somehow they actually played the best the whole year through? That's fast, too.

[Sedale Threatt]

I don’t understand. We evaluate what actually happened, at what level player played or what? Because I agree that Robinson’s productions doped off in playoffs. However that don’t change fact that he still played at very high level and in some strange way some people penalize him for that. I really don’t understand that logic.

Likewise, I don't understand how you can give anybody credit despite their production dropping, even to a still impressive level, while getting outplayed in a playoff defeat.

Kobe Bryant puts up a 25 spot in tonight's game, that's a career high for a decent number of players in the league. For him, that's a below-average game. His team loses, and I simply don't understand how he shouldn't be criticized for that.

Because it’s never one on one game. Spurs lost, not only Robinson. Whole team played bad and it wasn’t only Robinson’s fault. Hakeem’s stats were amazing, but he played the best ball of his life and nobody could stop him. Year earlier far better defensive team than Spurs 1995 can’t do much against Olajuwon. In 1995 Robinson had to defend him alone, in 1994 entire Knicks defense was focused on Olajuwon and he was defended by Ewing, Oakley or Mason, but they can’t do much, he still played very well.

I'm not saying it was only Robinson's fault. He generally did some amazing things -- in the regular season, at least -- with a pretty unimpressive cast.

But again -- his numbers dropped, while the numbers of his primary cover -- with whom he was considered a close peer, if not better than -- skyrocketed, and his team fizzled. Were there other factors in that? Sure. Like I said, his supporting cast was pretty unimpressive.

But as the team's best player, how can he possibly NOT get a huge portion of the blame? How do you look at those numbers, and the end result, and not conclude that he got his ass handed to him on a polished silver platter?

[Sedale Threatt]

But if he's still playing elite basketball, what's the difference?

I already explained that.

[lorak]

I don’t understand. We evaluate what actually happened, at what level player played or what?
Because I agree that Robinson’s productions doped off in playoffs. However that don’t change fact that he still played at very high level and in some strange way some people penalize him for that. I really don’t understand that logic.

The point he's trying to make is that all greats once the post-season hits either increase in production or play at pretty much the same level, Robinson's although it was at great, goes down in the playoffs, there's absolutely no reason for a player that great who did id throughout a span of an 82 game season's production to regress at clear level below what his standards are. When you set the bar really high, and you don't show up for it in the biggest stage of a players career, it's obviously going to give that player a big hit.

But why if he still played at very high level?
(Besides, most players usually plays worse in playoffs)

It seems that for Robinson’s place in history would be better if he wasn’t as good in regular season, because then there wouldn’t be any drop off…

Guys, it’s like Doctor MJ (I’m not sure, but I think that was him) said recently in one of LeBron’s threads. It was something like that: Rondo is playing very good in playoffs, LeBron was worse than usually him, but he still played at very high level, probably higher than Rondo. And that’s the point here.