Retro POY '95-96 (Voting Complete)

[semi-sentient]

Stockton had an injury that he probably shouldn't have even played with.

And it showed against Seattle.

That's a fair point, but Stockton did show up in a big way in game 7 whereas Malone went AWOL. That just illutrates the importance of a guy like Stockton. Also, Hornacek played extremely well in that series, so it's not like Malone was playing 1 on 5.

Code: Select all

  Malone: 27.0 PTS (.501 TS%), 11.6 REB, 5.1 AST
Hornacek: 20.3 PTS (.639 TS%),  3.7 REB, 3.7 AST
Stockton:  9.9 PTS (.452 TS%),  2.9 REB, 7.7 AST

I do find it interesting that Stockton is noted as second-rate consistently on this site, as well as the undue hype of Payton demolishing him (it would be due, if Stockton wasn't playing with a near-useless arm), but when it comes time to question or attack Malone, suddenly Stockton was a basketball-god-made-flesh who created a superstar named Karl Malone.

For the record, I've always liked Stockton and consider him one of the best PG's ever.

Or at the very least, even when playing as badly as he did in the Sonics series, he's supposed to be more than enough help to get to the Finals. Kind of ridiculous.

No, but what about the contribution of Hornacek? His numbers were pretty insane.

And considering what Malone did to Robinson, that portion of the question has already been answered many times over.

That's worthy of consideration, and I may change my mind before it's all said and done. I generally do have a hard time ranking Malone higher than Robinson due to defense, but in this case it might be just.

Edit: Fixed quote.

[ronnymac2]

Well obviously I'm someone who wants people to be careful in criticizing a guy too much for not living up to his own bar. There are however some valid reasons for the conclusion you're wondering about:

1 - Most simply, there's the degree to which each person weighs the RS & PS. Whatever the performance gaps are, there is conceivably a weight someone can attach to the post-season that will give the nod to the superior post-season performer.

2 - More prevalent though, and more reasonable I think considering the numbers you're throwing out, is the conclusion that the playoff performance tells something crucial about the players in question. If there exists a player who dominates when he plays teams one game at a time, but is controllable in the playoffs when a team has time to shift their strategy, you can make a case that the playoffs are what that player is, and that the regular season is effectively an illusion. In some ways this seems too harsh, but think about it like this: Say we have an exaggerated Wilt/Russell scenario where the two guys are so good one wins every year, and that the Wilt-ish person always plays better in the regular season, but the Russell-ish person always plays better in the playoffs and wins the titles (say 11 to 1). (Again, not literally those two guys, don't come back with arguments about Russell's scoring) I think it's pretty fair to say that everyone that the guy with 11 rings is going to be considered better even though the guy with 1 ring played better most of the time they played.

So the question arises as to whether a player just has a disappointing post-season because every one goes through ruts, or a disappointing post-season because he's just not that good in the post-season.

So the attacks on Robinson carry more weight than they would otherwise if you follow this second line of thinking.

The second option is the way I think about things. It describes what a player really is. I feel strongly about that. Not to be essentialist and say "this is how you judge basketball players, all of you!!"....but I think relative to any other way of judging them in reality, this is the best way. This is the best test.

[sp6r=underrated]

Just wanted to say I'm seeing some good argument on the pro-Hakeem, con-Robinson side. I have to admit that these series aren't fresh in my mind.

A question: Regarding Robinson getting stopped by one guy, it's been mentioned that this happened multiple times in a row. My recollection was that in the '95 Houston series, Robinson got swarmed. Was this not the case?

No.

The only big men in NBA history who ever got swarmed were Hakeem and KG. All other elite big men faced single coverage in every series they played and are solely to blame when they had series were they shot poorly from the field.

[ElGee]

4. Payton. He was a stud this year, period. More important to his team than Kemp, who had obvious gifts and less obvious--and significant—flaws. (If Shawn Kemp had learned to box out properly, his rebounding might be worth something. He didn’t, really. So it isn’t, as much.) In games 4-6 of the finals, Payton made Jordan work harder than pretty much anyone I had seen since the late 80s. Almost had him at 3; will look at the rest of the posts and could change this.

Can we put this into perspective though, since i think it's giving Payton a boost up people's ballots.

The regular season is 82 games. That's over 6,000 possessions for Payton. In the playoffs he played ~1,500 more possessions. He didn't guard Jordan for all of these games...they had Hawkins on him and even Schrempf at times. So this is, what, 150 defensive possessions? Within that series alone, Payton didn't even play that well.

Now, I think it's perfectly fair to look at that as being reflective of something bigger, and perhaps even use it as a tiebreaker or something. He did play Jordan wonderfully. I just get the feeling people are rocketing Payton up their boards because of these few games and his team's success. I'm fairly confident in saying that Payton was better in 1998 and better in 2000 than he was in 1996.

Finally, you have to ask yourself how big of an impact Payton's defense had on the game. For a point guard, I think it was huge. Compared to a wing, very good. But short of a big. Just watch the games -- he's not having the same impact defensively as Scottie Pippen, let alone the handful of elite bigs ahead of him. In the games against Jordan, Payton's having great defensive games relative to Michael, but it's not like his defensive line is:

2 charges, 5 forced turnovers, 2 basket saves (on help blocks/strips), 2 points against, 2 shooting fouls, no defensive errors, 17% FG's against, 5 defensive rebounds and the general disruption of dribble penetration from the PG.

I only mention that line because it approximates the last Scottie Pippen game I graded defensively.

[Sedale Threatt]

Just wanted to say I'm seeing some good argument on the pro-Hakeem, con-Robinson side. I have to admit that these series aren't fresh in my mind.

A question: Regarding Robinson getting stopped by one guy, it's been mentioned that this happened multiple times in a row. My recollection was that in the '95 Houston series, Robinson got swarmed. Was this not the case?

This is a local column written after Game 6 that I found in our archives:

A moment lost: How many more for Robinson?

HOUSTON - They've been closer to the NBA Finals only once before. And if San Antonio had been told in October the Spurs would take the defending champs to six games in the Western Conference finals, most in the city would have happily accepted that.

Funny, but few feel that way today. The Spurs didn't just lose the West - they had it stolen. They wasted something precious and rare, something that very well might not be there next time.

And the reason is as odd as this homeless series itself. With all the pieces finally around him, David Robinson wasn't what he is.

For the series. For Game 6. For the final minutes.

"Should there be another MVP vote?" said Clyde Drexler. "What do you think?"

I don't know what to think about Robinson. He deserves his MVP trophy. And yet few superstars have ever been so dominated.

Maybe that says more about Hakeem Olajuwon. The way he is going, he does the same to Shaquille O'Neal should they meet in the next series. And Robinson said as much afterward.

"I don't know how I can say this with a straight face," Robinson said, "but I thought I defended him pretty well. He played at a level I haven't seen often."

Olajuwon is why Houston is not really a No. 6 seed. These aren't the Rockets of 1981, an odd group that somehow surprised in the playoffs. They beat three teams who averaged 60 wins (Utah, Phoenix and San Antonio).

So this isn't a miracle bunch. This is a championship-level team that found itself after a season of fractures.

That, though, reveals the Spurs' lost chance. The Spurs suffered few injuries compared to other teams (Phoenix with Danny Manning, Utah with Felton Spencer).

Dave Cowens summed it up a few weeks ago. "This is their time," he said. That's what happens in sports. Careers come together. Other teams have problems. And the winners, for all their skills, have some abstract power to thank.

That's what the Spurs had. They avoided the Sonics - then avoided both Phoenix and Utah. How many times does this happen? Yet they went on to lose three games in this series in the Alamodome, when any one of them would have forced a Game 7 Saturday.

In the past, the blame would go to the point guard. Wasn't that always the problem? But Avery Johnson might have been The Most Consistent Spur in this series. His 19 points and 10 assists Thursday do not change that.

Sean Elliott? Once too soft, he wasn't. The Spurs might trade Dennis Rodman now, but Thursday gave another example why they shouldn't. And then there were smart, key minutes from Doc Rivers.

Nice group, especially at the end. With Robinson on the bench with five fouls, Elliott went one-on-one with Drexler to keep the Spurs close. But most impressive was this: Down by nine in a must-win road game with about six minutes left, they came back to take the lead. How many Spurs teams of the past do this?

AJ tossed in an open jumper. Rivers doubled on Olajuwon, forcing a turnover, and followed with two free throws and a trey. Rodman bullied for a rebound, and Rivers came back with yet another jumper for the tie.

All they needed was their superstar.

Bob Hill defended Robinson. "I know there is a lot of talk that (Olajuwon) kicked David's backside. But they doubled David everytime he caught it, we didn't. Hakeem ended up with a lot of isolated situations."

True. And left alone, maybe no man could defend Olajuwon's spins.

But in the last three minutes, that wasn't the problem. Instead, it was Robinson missing three free throws, clanging two jumpers and then finishing with the defining play.

Driving baseline, Robinson found himself boxed by Olajwuon. Awkward as he often seemed this series, his pass sailed to Sam Cassell.

Robinson took the blame with his usual class. "That's what stings. I felt I let the guys down some . . . I haven't felt anything like this since I've been in sports. Crummy way to end a good year."

Crummy, all right. And as Hill said he was proud of Robinson, he offered some optimism. "(Robinson) has learned a lot and will be better off next year," said Hill. "In fact, we laid great groundwork for the future. We will be better."

Maybe. And maybe next year, with this experience behind him, Robinson shocks some other unsuspecting superstar.

But if Rodman is traded, if Rivers retires and if the Spurs suffer the injuries others had . . . wasn't this a fragile mix? Teams that win 62 games don't need many lessons. The one they got Tuesday should be a stark one. About opportunities lost.

[Silver Bullet]

From the BR blog -

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4323

Well, that's it, then... Olajuwon owned Robinson from May 22-June 1, 1995, and therefore was the better player. Except Robinson's numbers are better than Olajuwon's, even if you throw out Hakeem's lost year in Toronto -- the Admiral essentially averaged the same points per minute on the same FG%, but he got to the line at a far better rate, shot a higher FT%, and turned the ball over less, leading to a much better offensive efficiency. Since their defensive numbers were equal and they both anchored equally strong defensive teams (if anything, Robinson's were better), it should come as no surprise that Robinson had the higher PER (26.2 to 23.9) and 18 more WS in 8,500 fewer minutes. And it's not like Hakeem dominated every head-to-head matchup. But Olajuwon was clearly better in the playoffs (25.7 PER and 22.6 WS vs. 23.0 and 17.5 for Robinson), and he obviously destroyed DR in that '95 series. So what gives? Was Robinson a choker, or was it like rock-paper-scissors (Hakeem dominates Robinson, but Robinson dominates everybody else, some of whom outplay Hakeem as well)? Did the Spurs catch Hakeem at a time when nobody was going to be able to stop him, did Robinson have a bad week, or was it perhaps a bit of both? If Hakeem could dominate a player of Robinson's stature at will, why didn't he do it against everybody, all of the time?

[ElGee]

^^^I'm trying to wait until 1995 to get into this, but my general assessment is this:

Prime Hakeem is better than prime Robinson.

That doesn't preclude Robinson from having a better year at some point in time.

In the 1995 WCF, Hakeem absolutely dominated him. To me (then and now) that was more of a statement about Hakeem being great than Robinson being bad (I'm not entirely sure it's fair to penalize D-Rob because Hill didn't want to double.)

[semi-sentient]

Can we put this into perspective though, since i think it's giving Payton a boost up people's ballots.

The regular season is 82 games. That's over 6,000 possessions for Payton. In the playoffs he played ~1,500 more possessions. He didn't guard Jordan for all of these games...they had Hawkins on him and even Schrempf at times. So this is, what, 150 defensive possessions? Within that series alone, Payton didn't even play that well.

I believe that Payton receiving the DPOY, while being voted 1st Team All-Defense and 2nd Team All-NBA sort of covers the regular season? Or was everyone just wrong about him?

Finally, you have to ask yourself how big of an impact Payton's defense had on the game. For a point guard, I think it was huge. Compared to a wing, very good. But short of a big. Just watch the games -- he's not having the same impact defensively as Scottie Pippen, let alone the handful of elite bigs ahead of him. In the games against Jordan, Payton's having great defensive games relative to Michael, but it's not like his defensive line is:

Where was the impact of these elite bigs in the playoffs? Robinson's impact on Malone? Malone's impact on Kemp?

Non-existent?

Edit: Now compare that to the impact of Payton who played admirable defense against the two main driving forces (Jordan and Stockton) of the two best offenses in the league (Bulls and Jazz).

[TrueLAfan]

4. Payton. He was a stud this year, period. More important to his team than Kemp, who had obvious gifts and less obvious--and significant—flaws. (If Shawn Kemp had learned to box out properly, his rebounding might be worth something. He didn’t, really. So it isn’t, as much.) In games 4-6 of the finals, Payton made Jordan work harder than pretty much anyone I had seen since the late 80s. Almost had him at 3; will look at the rest of the posts and could change this.

Can we put this into perspective though, since i think it's giving Payton a boost up people's ballots.

The regular season is 82 games. That's over 6,000 possessions for Payton. In the playoffs he played ~1,500 more possessions. He didn't guard Jordan for all of these games...they had Hawkins on him and even Schrempf at times. So this is, what, 150 defensive possessions? Within that series alone, Payton didn't even play that well.

Now, I think it's perfectly fair to look at that as being reflective of something bigger, and perhaps even use it as a tiebreaker or something. He did play Jordan wonderfully. I just get the feeling people are rocketing Payton up their boards because of these few games and his team's success. I'm fairly confident in saying that Payton was better in 1998 and better in 2000 than he was in 1996.

Finally, you have to ask yourself how big of an impact Payton's defense had on the game. For a point guard, I think it was huge. Compared to a wing, very good. But short of a big. Just watch the games -- he's not having the same impact defensively as Scottie Pippen, let alone the handful of elite bigs ahead of him. In the games against Jordan, Payton's having great defensive games relative to Michael, but it's not like his defensive line is:

2 charges, 5 forced turnovers, 2 basket saves (on help blocks/strips), 2 points against, 2 shooting fouls, no defensive errors, 17% FG's against, 5 defensive rebounds and the general disruption of dribble penetration from the PG.

I only mention that line because it approximates the last Scottie Pippen game I graded defensively.

Well, part of the perspective is that Gary Payton was Defensive Player of the Year. And in this case, part of the perspective is that a player being brought up frequently—David Robinson—had poor defensive play in the playoffs, and it cost his team.

I’ve got Pippen in my top 7 for the season, so I’ve got nothing bad to say about Scottie. But the points being made about postseason play with other players are, IMO, valid; they’re also one of the main reasons why this topic exists. MVP voting is done before the postseason. Several players that had earned regular season MVPs struggled in the playoffs, and a part of what we consider—as others have noted—is whether this would/should have had an effect on the MVP voting in a season. Now, the question of how much emphasis to put on post season play is relative. Some people give it a ton; some people rate it more or less equally with regular season play. As usual, I’m in the middle about this. Considering that David Robinson had a much better regular season than Gary Payton. He was also worse on both offense and defense than Payton in the playoffs. Is that enough to elevate Payton over Drob? For some it is. For me, it isn’t—although it makes it close.

[lorak]

A question: Regarding Robinson getting stopped by one guy, it's been mentioned that this happened multiple times in a row. My recollection was that in the '95 Houston series, Robinson got swarmed. Was this not the case?

Unfortunately – as we could see in this thread – most people don’t remember that and their perception of that matchup is like Hakeem played 1 on 1 against Robinson. While in fact Robinson had to defend Olajuwon alone and he was defended by whole Rockets team.

re: Manuel Calaver’s God Points

Lets look at another ex ample:
Player A
35 GP in RS
30 GP in PS

Player B
20 GP in RS
28 GP in PS

And many posters here are saying that player B was better because player A had huge drop off, while in fact his production in playoffs was still better than player’s B.


re: Robinson’s defense in playoffs

His defense wasn’t worse in PS. The thing is he usually had to defend alone, because his teams had poor defenders (or some who refuses to play team ball… vide Rodman). Besides, for example Shaq destroyed Mutombo in 2001, or Hakeem was amazing against all time great defense in 1994 finals. Does it mean that Mutombo or Knicks 1994 played bad defense? No. That means that Hakeem or Shaq were so good.

[sp6r=underrated]

My general assessment. You have to vote for Hakeem over Robinson in 95. I also think you have to rank Hakeem over Robinson all time.

Still, I can easily see scenarios were Robinson's career could have unfolded better than Hakeem.

His RS play is extremely valuable because he could place mediocre squads in great playoff position. That is why I think it is unfair the way people dismiss the first round series against Phoenix. The Spurs got to play the Suns because Robinson dominated the RS, Hakeem would have had easier match-ups in the PS if he dominated the RS the same way. Robinson was in some way what a lot of people (inaccurately) said Shaq was: someone who needed a dominant guard to make up for his flaw. If Robinson had that dominant guard, or even someone like Billups, I have little doubt he would have been the centerpiece of a dynasty.

That said there a lot of players who had careers that could have been regarded as better if they had more favorable circumstances: Robinson, KG, Erving, Barkley, etc. There are also a lot of players who had very fortunate careers: Magic, Duncan, Russell, etc. A lot of a player's career is things beyond their control

[Silver Bullet]

^^^I'm trying to wait until 1995 to get into this, but my general assessment is this:

Prime Hakeem is better than prime Robinson.

That doesn't preclude Robinson from having a better year at some point in time.

In the 1995 WCF, Hakeem absolutely dominated him. To me (then and now) that was more of a statement about Hakeem being great than Robinson being bad (I'm not entirely sure it's fair to penalize D-Rob because Hill didn't want to double.)

Well, it is having an impact on this years vote. People are remembering it as Robinson consistently choking in the playoffs - which is true, but only to a limited extent.

If you go back and look at Robinson's career - he always struggled against Hakeem and the Jazz. But he did fine against Shaq, Ewing, Zo, Mutombo.

If Howard went up against Yao and struggled big time, would that mean Yao is a better player than Howard. Of course not. He very well might be, but that's not the issue. The point is one player dominates the other consistently, while the other dominates everybody else even more and even more consistently, then Player A is not necessarily better than Player B.

[sp6r=underrated]

^^^I'm trying to wait until 1995 to get into this, but my general assessment is this:

Prime Hakeem is better than prime Robinson.

That doesn't preclude Robinson from having a better year at some point in time.

In the 1995 WCF, Hakeem absolutely dominated him. To me (then and now) that was more of a statement about Hakeem being great than Robinson being bad (I'm not entirely sure it's fair to penalize D-Rob because Hill didn't want to double.)

Well, it is having an impact on this years vote. People are remembering it as Robinson consistently choking in the playoffs - which is true, but only to a limited extent.

If you go back and look at Robinson's career - he always struggled against Hakeem and the Jazz. But he did fine against Shaq, Ewing, Zo, Mutombo.

If Howard went up against Yao and struggled big time, would that mean Yao is a better player than Howard. Of course not. He very well might be, but that's not the issue. The point is one player dominates the other consistently, while the other dominates everybody else even more and even more consistently, then Player A is not necessarily better than Player B.

But Hakeem generally did perform better in the PS than Robinson. It wasn't just that match-up, though as I have said, people make too much of that series.

I only have a problem when people are giving Hakeem credit in years when that trend didn't hold true. 1996 was one of those years when the trend didn't hold. So if you rank Hakeem over Robinson, it is solely based on things that happened in other seasons.

While I think it is appropriate and necessary to look at other seasons for context on what happened in 1996. You can't totally disregard what happened that season. The people who are voting Hakeem over Robinson are doing that and I don't that is fair.

There have been votes I've cast were I have voted for Player A over Player B even though I think B was still the better player. You have to acknowledge what happened and Robinson just flat out outplayed Hakeem from beginning to end this year and he deserves to be ranked higher.

[TrueLAfan]

^^ Exactly. The tendency to vote for a player's performance based on what he was--good or bad--in the past and/or future is strong. But you have to try and avoid that, Hakeem usually played (much) better than DRob in the post season. It really wasn't true in 1996. You can't let what happened in 1994 or 1995 (or 1997 or 1998) affect how you perceive the actual events of 1996.

[Sedale Threatt]

Speaking strictly for myself, I'm not going to take 95 into account here. In hindsight, I regret getting into the debate in this thread, as it's not really the place for it. I just jumped in and, well, all of us knows how that goes.

[ElGee]

Can we put this into perspective though, since i think it's giving Payton a boost up people's ballots.

The regular season is 82 games. That's over 6,000 possessions for Payton. In the playoffs he played ~1,500 more possessions. He didn't guard Jordan for all of these games...they had Hawkins on him and even Schrempf at times. So this is, what, 150 defensive possessions? Within that series alone, Payton didn't even play that well.

I believe that Payton receiving the DPOY, while being voted 1st Team All-Defense and 2nd Team All-NBA sort of covers the regular season? Or was everyone just wrong about him?

It has nothing to do with being "wrong" -- presenting how a player was viewed at the time is not a way of measuring a player's impact, not to mention I think it should be used as a last resort because it kind of defeats the purpose of the project. But yes, I thought they were wrong then for voting him DPOY.

Finally, you have to ask yourself how big of an impact Payton's defense had on the game. For a point guard, I think it was huge. Compared to a wing, very good. But short of a big. Just watch the games -- he's not having the same impact defensively as Scottie Pippen, let alone the handful of elite bigs ahead of him. In the games against Jordan, Payton's having great defensive games relative to Michael, but it's not like his defensive line is:

Where was the impact of these elite bigs in the playoffs? Robinson's impact on Malone? Malone's impact on Kemp?

Non-existent?

I don't know if that's entirely fair.

(1) One v one matchups are ballpark estimates of a player defensive impact against that opponent. For instance, I'm re-watching the entire G1 of the ECF because I want to watch more Penny vs. Pippen and it turns out Penny isn't scoring as much on Pippen as I remember...they come on doubles, switches, against Jordan, when Pippen's out of the game, etc.

(2) One of the reasons bigs shoulder a larger defensive responsibility is because so much is funneled to them. Their man may finish with 20 and 10, but if the rest of the team can't score in the paint because of that big, say Robinson, he's had a pretty darn big impact on the game defensively.

I'm not resigned to saying Malone's defense was better than Payton's, but I do think it was exremely underrated. Heck, I underrated it - re-watch the games, he bothers a lot of people and takes a lot of charges (along with strips and steals).

Btw, if Payton played 2000 Payton offense, this would be another story. But I think Penny's offense was well ahead of his this season.

[ronnymac2]

Jordan is one for me. Malone is two.

Obviously, MJ had a great regular season. He had a great playoffs. He was the best player in the league. Won the awards and had team success. I think 96 MJ gets underrated. He's basically 95% of peak MJ ito effectiveness for me.

His performance against Orlando was impressive. There are two full games from that ECF on youtube, and Jordan was great throughout. The Bulls didn't need him to be superman really, but I thought his defense was exceptional, and he was in another world in game 4 to eliminate ORL and get his revenge.

Nothiny against Gary Payton or Scottie Pippen, who were amazing players this year, but there's no doubt that Penny was better. I understand Scottie was on a GOAT team and was at his peak, and I know GP was awesome and won DPOY, but.....Penny was so beastly.

There's one thing that really impresses me about Penny. Watching him play, he's a shooting guard who played point guard for ORL because:

A. He could
B. Nobody else could handle the ball on that team

You make this guy a finisher- a real shooting guard who can still make plays for others a la Kobe or T-Mac or Jordan or Wade- and he becomes even more dangerous. He gets better defensively because he doesn't have to guard 6'1 pg's with quickness. Penny actually defended Jordan during those ECF's, and imo, he played him really well.

That ORL team had choker and Dennis Scott on the wing, neither of whom could handle the ball. HoGrant was no Odom. You obviously could run an offense through Shaq in the half-court, so that made things easier, but still.....Penny was playing out of position, with a poorly-constructed team and absolutely no depth, and still played brilliantly.

That ECF goes six games if Horace Grant plays imo. He was injured in gm 1. Choker also missed gm 4 (probably a blessing though). Dennis Scott played like crap. Basically, Shaq and Penny played out of their minds. They were amazing and did everything they could against a GOAT team. It's just hard when Penny is the only ball-handler and is getting hounded by MJ and PIP and is supposed to score and defend one of them, too. It's hard for Shaq when he's being defended by Dennis Rodman and his crappy teammates can't deliver him the ball (second half of game 2 is pathetic) because of the help d on the perimeter.

BTW.....Shaq averaged 27/10 on 64% shooting and got to the line 8 times per game against that very strong defense....with no Grant, with Scott shooting 3/19 from 3, and with Choker shooting 9/29 overall through three games.

Imagine if Robinson had to deal with THAT defense......


Spots 3 through 5 are going to three from this list: Robinson, O'neal, Hardaway, Olajuwon.

Patrick Ewing's year doesn't stand out this time for me. GP and PIP get the big honorable mentions. Hardaway is the weak link ito being a player, but the three centers have their baggage this year.....(Shaq's 30 games missed, Robinson's failure, and Olajuwon's decline on both ends of the floor).

[ElGee]

^^^I'm trying to wait until 1995 to get into this, but my general assessment is this:

Prime Hakeem is better than prime Robinson.

That doesn't preclude Robinson from having a better year at some point in time.

In the 1995 WCF, Hakeem absolutely dominated him. To me (then and now) that was more of a statement about Hakeem being great than Robinson being bad (I'm not entirely sure it's fair to penalize D-Rob because Hill didn't want to double.)

Well, it is having an impact on this years vote. People are remembering it as Robinson consistently choking in the playoffs - which is true, but only to a limited extent.

If you go back and look at Robinson's career - he always struggled against Hakeem and the Jazz. But he did fine against Shaq, Ewing, Zo, Mutombo.

If Howard went up against Yao and struggled big time, would that mean Yao is a better player than Howard. Of course not. He very well might be, but that's not the issue. The point is one player dominates the other consistently, while the other dominates everybody else even more and even more consistently, then Player A is not necessarily better than Player B.

I agree.

I do think it's fair to be macroscopic though and just regard Robinson slightly less in general if people see it as something symptomatic of a larger issue (see MJ's post). As long as people are consistent about that approach to player evaluations, it's hard to argue that.

[Manuel Calavera]

Well obviously I'm someone who wants people to be careful in criticizing a guy too much for not living up to his own bar. There are however some valid reasons for the conclusion you're wondering about:

1 - Most simply, there's the degree to which each person weighs the RS & PS. Whatever the performance gaps are, there is conceivably a weight someone can attach to the post-season that will give the nod to the superior post-season performer.

I agree, but in the example I provided Player A was better in both cases, but people are still saying Player B was better because his game didn't drop off. It's like saying Robert Horry is better than Kareem because Horry turned into a superstar at the end of games.

2 - More prevalent though, and more reasonable I think considering the numbers you're throwing out, is the conclusion that the playoff performance tells something crucial about the players in question. If there exists a player who dominates when he plays teams one game at a time, but is controllable in the playoffs when a team has time to shift their strategy, you can make a case that the playoffs are what that player is, and that the regular season is effectively an illusion. In some ways this seems too harsh, but think about it like this: Say we have an exaggerated Wilt/Russell scenario where the two guys are so good one wins every year, and that the Wilt-ish person always plays better in the regular season, but the Russell-ish person always plays better in the playoffs and wins the titles (say 11 to 1). (Again, not literally those two guys, don't come back with arguments about Russell's scoring) I think it's pretty fair to say that everyone that the guy with 11 rings is going to be considered better even though the guy with 1 ring played better most of the time they played.

I think the difference between the Wilt and Russell scenario and the one I presented was that Wilt and Russell were playing each other each and every year in the playoffs, while the C's were able to focus entirely on Chamberlain while Russell was guarded by solely Chamberlain. Chamberlain's numbers generally dropped in the playoffs (other than his rebounds), its understandable, he was playing an all-time great defensive team every year of his career, but people penalize him for that as if he was somehow supposed to elevate his normal game playing the greatest defender ever. What if Jordan had to be guarded by a prime Moncrief, prime Pippen, and prime Michael Cooper (all on the same team) every year for a decade (lets say 87-98 with a year taken off for baseball). His numbers would drop across the board and win or lose he'd still be seen as a mentally weak player for not being able to overcome the impossible.

I don't think it's the exact same case with Robinson, but I think the terms mentally weak and choker are thrown around too lightly and I think they're attached to players who don't deserve it ("clutch" too). The NBA is about matchups and I think a lot of the supposed drop in production was really because he was just playing a team that had the personnel geared to stop him. Had he played an equally talented team that wasn't geared towards him his numbers would probably improve (and since he was basically his team they'd probably win too). I'm not going to disagree that his game is easier to stop in the playoffs, as someone said he played like a small forward on offense and you can throw a ton of different types of defenders to stop those, while a center like Shaq can really only be beaten so many ways. But I think that part is exaggerated, and the part about him being mentally weak (or having a mentality of not being a #1 option) are fabricated out of thin air.

However this has almost nothing to do with my example, in both the RS/PO player A was better than Player B, but the people who say player B was better were having their minds warped by a series that happened a year ago.

[ElGee]

That ORL team had choker and Dennis Scott on the wing, neither of whom could handle the ball. HoGrant was no Odom. You obviously could run an offense through Shaq in the half-court, so that made things easier, but still.....Penny was playing out of position, with a poorly-constructed team and absolutely no depth, and still played brilliantly.

This is the funniest line of the thread.