Retro POY '96-97 (Voting Complete)

[An Unbiased Fan]

Well, that doesn't seem to be the same approach to player evaluation you were using a few seasons ago - this is an extremely raw summary of big-3 box score stats.

Furthermore, it's the exact OPPOSITE logic you used in 2009:

Regular Season:

1) Lebron - MVP, All-NBA/All-D(1st), Best record overall
2) Kobe - MVP runner-up, All-NBA/All-D(1st), Best record in West
3) Wade - All-NBA(1st)
4) Dwight - All-NBA/All-D(1st), DPOY
5) Paul - All-NBA(2nd)/All-D(1st)

-Lebron was a monster statwise. He made both the All-NBA & All-D 1st teams. He was the runaway MVP by leading his team to the best record.

-Kobe had a stellar season, and made the All-NBA/All-D 1st teams. He was the MVP runner-up and led LA to the best record in the West.

1) Kobe - Finals MVP, Led team to 3 straight series wins against 50+ win teams
2) Lebron - off the charts stats
3) Dwight
4) Melo
5) Rondo

-Kobe's run was tremendous. When LA needed a win, Kobe came through. His leadership and production all make his 30/5/5 performance the best in the playoffs.

-Lebron was great in the 1st 2 rounds, but I do factor in the competition. Losing to a Magic without their all-star PG, and with HCA is a blackmark.

Final rankings:

1) Kobe
2) Lebron
3) Dwight
4) Wade
5) Melo

Kobe did whatever LA needed to win the title. whether it was to score 40, or to D up Billups or Melo, Kobe did it. From day 1 he was on a mission, and delivered the stats and ring. He was the MVP runner, and Finals MVP. Lebron had better stats, but when put in context of the systems run by LA and Cle, both were comaprable. Not making the Finals despite HCA and with a healthy team puts Bron at #2 for me. The leadership factor was missing with him in the playoffs.

2009 LeBron had more points, rebounds and assists per game (not to mention advanced statistical dominance). He also won the MVP and finished all-nba 1st and all-nba D...

Actually, you just showed that I have been consistent with my evaluations. First, you must have missed this line in my words about 1997...."If Malone had faltered and lost in the earlier rounds, then MJ would be #1, but I can't penalize Malone for losing in 6 to the better team."

If Malone had lost to a lesser team like Bron did in 2009, then MJ would have been #1. If Lebron had made the FInals and taken LA to 6 games in a close series, he would have gotten the #1 ranking in 2009.

[semi-sentient]

Site updated: http://www.dolem.com/poy

Karl Malone cracks the top 5, replacing LeBron James. Jordan probably replaces Malone after the '95-96 votes are done.

Code: Select all

1. Tim Duncan         6.153
2. Shaquille O'Neal   4.898
3. Kobe Bryant        3.658
4. Kevin Garnett      3.388
5. Karl Malone        2.350

[Silver Bullet]

SB - your concept of bias is "different perception than the norm." Only that is not the definition of bias.

Furthermore, it's perplexing that you know you have outlying opinions but don't begin by explaining them. That's an issue I'd take with anyone in this project. Gongxi - who I don't always agree with btw - has taken a number of outlying stances. He starts his process by defending that position. It's never some new, arbitrary criteria.

When someone swoops in at the end and says something radically different than the group without explanation, I think it challenges the spirit of the project.

And no, I don't think "he had more points, rebounds and assists" is a solid explanation for why someone would rank one player over another because that isn't WHY he's ranking him that way in the first place. Just like I don't think you woke up on July 1, 2008 and decided "Kevin Garnett definitely did not have a top 5 NBA season BECAUSE he didn't play 2400 minutes." I don't think - jeez, I hope - anyone in this projects checks those stats and FROM THEM determines who the best NBA players are.

Okay, that's a fair beef to have.

I haven't been putting as much effort as the project has gone on, as I'm pressed for time and don't know a lot of stuff off the top of my head, which definitely was a factor in the 00's. So I'll keep that in mind as we go on.

But the other thing is, you're hanging out on to peripheral stuff. The minutes thing was a small part of my argument and a part of my argument that I retracted about 5 minutes after I said it - but you've been bringing up the same issue in thread after thread. The Celtics had three players who had in different seasons led their teams to 50 plus wins and the Conference Finals. This was a team that had been overhauled from top to bottom, brought in the hottest defensive coach in the league, had a starting point guard who's turned into a perrenial All-Star and had a center who's one of the better defensive players in the league. Specially in a situation, where I think that said player has a history of disappearing in clutch situations despite being a franchise player and is soft. You cannot expect me to use the exact same criteria to judge that situation vs a situation where the team didn't really care for home court, coming off 4 championships in 6 years, it's only natural that they didn't go all out in the regular season and despite that, they won 69 games. The 2nd and third best players on that team are two of the top 10 defensive players of all time - and played a huge part in winning title after title.

I mean, what you are saying would only make sense, if I had Kevin Garnett at 1 and I dropped him 5 spots ONLY because of his minutes. Even if he hadn't missed any games, I probably wouldn't have had him in my top 3 at least and probably not my top 4.
Compared with Shaq, who if he had played the whole season would probably be somewhere in the top 3.
This is the guy who was putting up 27-13-4 on 56% prior to the break. KG's averages in the title season are what ? 18-9 and 2 (Wild Guess)? Why would you want me to treat both the situations the same ?

[Dr Positivity]

I think Malone could end up with the highest points without topping a year.

[ElGee]

Actually, you just showed that I have been consistent with my evaluations. First, you must have missed this line in my words about 1997...."If Malone had faltered and lost in the earlier rounds, then MJ would be #1, but I can't penalize Malone for losing in 6 to the better team."

If Malone had lost to a lesser team like Bron did in 2009, then MJ would have been #1. If Lebron had made the FInals and taken LA to 6 games in a close series, he would have gotten the #1 ranking in 2009.

Sorry, I'm not seeing how that's consistent at all. Are you treating all players like this, or only players who are good enough in the regular season to earn the No. 1 seed in the conference? What if the Bulls played in the West? Then MJ would be No. 1?

Note: Bron didn't lose - the CAVS did.

You had a lengthy post in 04 (what was your vote in 04 again?) about how poorly Kobe's teammates played in the 04 Finals. So, I don't know why you wouldn't apply the same standards to LeBron James and Karl Malone.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Actually, you just showed that I have been consistent with my evaluations. First, you must have missed this line in my words about 1997...."If Malone had faltered and lost in the earlier rounds, then MJ would be #1, but I can't penalize Malone for losing in 6 to the better team."

If Malone had lost to a lesser team like Bron did in 2009, then MJ would have been #1. If Lebron had made the FInals and taken LA to 6 games in a close series, he would have gotten the #1 ranking in 2009.

Sorry, I'm not seeing how that's consistent at all. Are you treating all players like this, or only players who are good enough in the regular season to earn the No. 1 seed in the conference? What if the Bulls played in the West? Then MJ would be No. 1?

Yes, I treat all players like this. There is a lot more to a player's season than simple stats. I like to throw context and perspective into the mix. If the Bulls were in the West, my rankings wouldn't have changed. The Bulls were still the better team, and if the series went the same way, I would still put Malone #1. The difference with this and Lebron in 2009 is that the Cavs lost with HCA to a Magic team that didn't even have it's all-star PG. Had the Cavs lost to the Lakers in a close series, then I would have put Lebron #1.

You had a lengthy post in 04 (what was your vote in 04 again?) about how poorly Kobe's teammates played in the 04 Finals. So, I don't know why you wouldn't apply the same standards to LeBron James and Karl Malone.

I believe I missed the 04' vote, but I did bring up the play of the roleplayers in that 04' Finals in the thread. I wasn't really excusing Kobe though, I was simply putting into context why he shot so much in that series.

[ElGee]

SB - your concept of bias is "different perception than the norm." Only that is not the definition of bias.

Furthermore, it's perplexing that you know you have outlying opinions but don't begin by explaining them. That's an issue I'd take with anyone in this project. Gongxi - who I don't always agree with btw - has taken a number of outlying stances. He starts his process by defending that position. It's never some new, arbitrary criteria.

When someone swoops in at the end and says something radically different than the group without explanation, I think it challenges the spirit of the project.

And no, I don't think "he had more points, rebounds and assists" is a solid explanation for why someone would rank one player over another because that isn't WHY he's ranking him that way in the first place. Just like I don't think you woke up on July 1, 2008 and decided "Kevin Garnett definitely did not have a top 5 NBA season BECAUSE he didn't play 2400 minutes." I don't think - jeez, I hope - anyone in this projects checks those stats and FROM THEM determines who the best NBA players are.

Okay, that's a fair beef to have.

I haven't been putting as much effort as the project has gone on, as I'm pressed for time and don't know a lot of stuff off the top of my head, which definitely was a factor in the 00's. So I'll keep that in mind as we go on.

But the other thing is, you're hanging out on to peripheral stuff. The minutes thing was a small part of my argument and a part of my argument that I retracted about 5 minutes after I said it - but you've been bringing up the same issue in thread after thread. The Celtics had three players who had in different seasons led their teams to 50 plus wins and the Conference Finals. This was a team that had been overhauled from top to bottom, brought in the hottest defensive coach in the league, had a starting point guard who's turned into a perrenial All-Star and had a center who's one of the better defensive players in the league. Specially in a situation, where I think that said player has a history of disappearing in clutch situations despite being a franchise player and is soft. You cannot expect me to use the exact same criteria to judge that situation vs a situation where the team didn't really care for home court, coming off 4 championships in 6 years, it's only natural that they didn't go all out in the regular season and despite that, they won 69 games. The 2nd and third best players on that team are two of the top 10 defensive players of all time - and played a huge part in winning title after title.

I mean, what you are saying would only make sense, if I had Kevin Garnett at 1 and I dropped him 5 spots ONLY because of his minutes. Even if he hadn't missed any games, I probably wouldn't have had him in my top 3 at least and probably not my top 4.
Compared with Shaq, who if he had played the whole season would probably be somewhere in the top 3.
This is the guy who was putting up 27-13-4 on 56% prior to the break. KG's averages in the title season are what ? 18-9 and 2 (Wild Guess)? Why would you want me to treat both the situations the same ?

I just pointed out an inconsistency. You've reduced it to a "peripheral hang-up."

And that's my point - I'm not trying to "hang" onto anything that is peripheral. That is all you're offering up as an explanation. It's not like you have a bunch of central points and you casually mention something like MP in the periphery as a tiebreaker. You posted a chart centering around MP in the 08 thread.

As far as a macroscopic point about him being clutch, you didn't say anything about it in the POY thread as far as I recall, but in another thread...and in that thread your evidence for why you didn't think he was clutch were actually games in which he was clutch (G7 vs. Sacramento?)...only you cut the parts where he scored! That is the definition of bias. Either that, or just come out and say "I hate Kevin Garnett and don't want to vote for him." Well, you kind of said that in 2004. I digress.

NO 2 situations are ever identical. It's the logic that is being offered up that is parallel. I'd prefer we just focus more on how good players are as individuals, how they play and only use team results in context and as a reflection that those players are doing something right. You and a few others are reversing engineering it and starting (and sometimes ending) explanations around the other 11 guys on their team and the final team result.

In general, no one should ever be too reliant on the basic box score trio (ppg, rpg, apg). My guess is you haven't been judging players primarily based on those 3 stats...or else Kevin Garnett would be on your ballot more.

So, given that, they're similar situations (97 Bulls dominance, title, 3 all-timers vs. 08 Celtics dominance, title, 3 all-timers). As far as Shaq vs. Garnett, you know that players numbers will drop when they play in great team settings. That's why KG's raw stats (19-9-3 59% TS) dropped in Boston..but you know that! So why are you bringing it up? You didn't say "Kobe really had a down year" in 2004 (when you voted him 2nd). KG did dominate the advanced stats for 2008 though...

Btw, I watched every Bulls game in 1997 (with the exception of the second half of the Miami heat loss due to power outage). The only way someone could say they were coasting is if they didn't watch them. They started 68-10 with an 11 SRS and Rodman, Longley and Kukoc missed a combined 75 games! And apparently it's going to fly that Jordan was No. 2 and Pippen out of the top 5. Maybe it was Harper's 6 points per game that did it.

*Pierce never led a team to 50 wins, it was 49 in 02...which I believe you've called the weakest conference ever.

[ElGee]

Actually, you just showed that I have been consistent with my evaluations. First, you must have missed this line in my words about 1997...."If Malone had faltered and lost in the earlier rounds, then MJ would be #1, but I can't penalize Malone for losing in 6 to the better team."

If Malone had lost to a lesser team like Bron did in 2009, then MJ would have been #1. If Lebron had made the FInals and taken LA to 6 games in a close series, he would have gotten the #1 ranking in 2009.

Sorry, I'm not seeing how that's consistent at all. Are you treating all players like this, or only players who are good enough in the regular season to earn the No. 1 seed in the conference? What if the Bulls played in the West? Then MJ would be No. 1?

Yes, I treat all players like this. There is a lot more to a player's season than simple stats. I like to throw context and perspective into the mix. If the Bulls were in the West, my rankings wouldn't have changed. The Bulls were still the better team, and if the series went the same way, I would still put Malone #1. The difference with this and Lebron in 2009 is that the Cavs lost with HCA to a Magic team that didn't even have it's all-star PG. Had the Cavs lost to the Lakers in a close series, then I would have put Lebron #1.

You had a lengthy post in 04 (what was your vote in 04 again?) about how poorly Kobe's teammates played in the 04 Finals. So, I don't know why you wouldn't apply the same standards to LeBron James and Karl Malone.

I believe I missed the 04' vote, but I did bring up the play of the roleplayers in that 04' Finals in the thread. I wasn't really excusing Kobe though, I was simply putting into context why he shot so much in that series.

I thought this was individual POY, not team POY (and you could argue the Magic were the better team, at least h-2-h, since they beat them in a 7 game series).

I mean, if 09 LeBron played with you, me, "Doctor MJ" and Silver Bullet and made the first round and lost, while 09 Kobe played with Stu Scott, Michael Wilbon, Tony Kornheiser and Tony Reali and made the first round and lost, and, for the sake of this hypothetical, played exactly the same basketball (literally on every possession) that they played throughout the 2009 season, you'd have Kobe 1st?

Btw, I think Doctor MJ has been clear about NOT ranking players ahead of other players because they made it deeper into the playoffs. Yet here, that's your reasoning for Kobe > LeBron, but then NOT your reasoning for Malone > Jordan because apparently that extra round is a deal breaker?

[An Unbiased Fan]

I thought this was individual POY, not team POY (and you could argue the Magic were the better team, at least h-2-h, since they beat them in a 7 game series).

I'm rating the individual, not the team. Otherwise, I would have put MJ #1 in 97'.

And no, I don't think a Jameer-less Magic team was better than the Cavs in 09'. When you throw in their best record, HCA, health, and performance up to that series, I feel it's clear they were the better team.

I mean, if 09 LeBron played with you, me, "Doctor MJ" and Silver Bullet and made the first round and lost, while 09 Kobe played with Stu Scott, Michael Wilbon, Tony Kornheiser and Tony Reali and made the first round and lost, and, for the sake of this hypothetical, played exactly the same basketball (literally on every possession) that they played throughout the 2009 season, you'd have Kobe 1st?

The context of this argument is off. If either of these guys made the playoffs with a cast of non-NBA caliber players, it would be a HUGE accomplishment. I would need to see how the players performed, how they attained their record, and then weigh the various performances of the 2 stars in the RS & PS. There is no way to answer such a hypothetical question.

Although...with me on his team, Lebron would have a legit #1 option.

Btw, I think Doctor MJ has been clear about NOT ranking players ahead of other players because they made it deeper into the playoffs. Yet here, that's your reasoning for Kobe > LeBron, but then NOT your reasoning for Malone > Jordan because apparently that extra round is a deal breaker?

The etxtra round isn't the focus. it's MJ & Malone's various performances weighed against quality of opponents throughout the RS & PS. Again, Malone lost to a better Bulls team in 97'. Lebron lost to a worse Magic team in 09'. Apple & Oranges.

[ElGee]

I thought this was individual POY, not team POY (and you could argue the Magic were the better team, at least h-2-h, since they beat them in a 7 game series).

I'm rating the individual, not the team. Otherwise, I would have put MJ #1 in 97'.

And no, I don't think a Jameer-less Magic team was better than the Cavs in 09'. When you throw in their best record, HCA, health, and performance up to that series, I feel it's clear they were the better team.

Then why did they lose???

I mean, if 09 LeBron played with you, me, "Doctor MJ" and Silver Bullet and made the first round and lost, while 09 Kobe played with Stu Scott, Michael Wilbon, Tony Kornheiser and Tony Reali and made the first round and lost, and, for the sake of this hypothetical, played exactly the same basketball (literally on every possession) that they played throughout the 2009 season, you'd have Kobe 1st?

The context of this argument is off. If either of these guys made the playoffs with a cast of non-NBA caliber players, it would be a HUGE accomplishment. I would need to see how the players performed, how they attained their record, and then weigh the various performances of the 2 stars in the RS & PS. There is no way to answer such a hypothetical question.

Although...with me on his team, Lebron would have a legit #1 option.

Btw, I think Doctor MJ has been clear about NOT ranking players ahead of other players because they made it deeper into the playoffs. Yet here, that's your reasoning for Kobe > LeBron, but then NOT your reasoning for Malone > Jordan because apparently that extra round is a deal breaker?

The etxtra round isn't the focus. it's MJ & Malone's various performances weighed against quality of opponents throughout the RS & PS. Again, Malone lost to a better Bulls team in 97'. Lebron lost to a worse Magic team in 09'. Apple & Oranges.

In the first sentence you say you are rating individuals. Then you mention the team results as your explanation for rating the individuals.

Maybe the other people in the project can help me on this one because I don't get how your reasoning which involves the team results is an explanation for rating the individual here, not the team.

[An Unbiased Fan]

I thought this was individual POY, not team POY (and you could argue the Magic were the better team, at least h-2-h, since they beat them in a 7 game series).

I'm rating the individual, not the team. Otherwise, I would have put MJ #1 in 97'.

And no, I don't think a Jameer-less Magic team was better than the Cavs in 09'. When you throw in their best record, HCA, health, and performance up to that series, I feel it's clear they were the better team.

Then why did they lose???

I mean, if 09 LeBron played with you, me, "Doctor MJ" and Silver Bullet and made the first round and lost, while 09 Kobe played with Stu Scott, Michael Wilbon, Tony Kornheiser and Tony Reali and made the first round and lost, and, for the sake of this hypothetical, played exactly the same basketball (literally on every possession) that they played throughout the 2009 season, you'd have Kobe 1st?

The context of this argument is off. If either of these guys made the playoffs with a cast of non-NBA caliber players, it would be a HUGE accomplishment. I would need to see how the players performed, how they attained their record, and then weigh the various performances of the 2 stars in the RS & PS. There is no way to answer such a hypothetical question.

Although...with me on his team, Lebron would have a legit #1 option.

Btw, I think Doctor MJ has been clear about NOT ranking players ahead of other players because they made it deeper into the playoffs. Yet here, that's your reasoning for Kobe > LeBron, but then NOT your reasoning for Malone > Jordan because apparently that extra round is a deal breaker?

The etxtra round isn't the focus. it's MJ & Malone's various performances weighed against quality of opponents throughout the RS & PS. Again, Malone lost to a better Bulls team in 97'. Lebron lost to a worse Magic team in 09'. Apple & Oranges.

In the first sentence you say you are rating individuals. Then you mention the team results as your explanation for rating the individuals.

Maybe the other people in the project can help me on this one because I don't get how your reasoning which involves the team results is an explanation for rating the individual here, not the team.

1) The Cavs lost because they had no answer for guys like Lewis for one. One might ask why All-D 1st team Lebron didn't take up that challenge to guard him. Playing a ball-dominant style that basically turned his teammates into decorations didn't really help either. Lebron had great production numbers, but that was due in large part to the him holding the ball all game long.

There is a reason Lebron is 1-5 against 50+ win teams in the playoffs, and 09' was a perfect example why. Reminds me of Warren Moon in that Run & Shoot offense, where the system allowed him to put up big numbers, yet in the PS against good teams, he faltered.

2) Star players lead their teams. There is no way to exclude the indivudual completely from the team result. What I do is gauge how a star impacted their team's results in the RS & PS. I also take into account the system run by the team and what the player's role is in that system is, because it influences their production and stats greatly.

Basketball is a team game afterall, not 1 on 1. How a player effects his own AND his team's performance plays a major role in my thinking. How can we truly evaluate a guy like Magic or Bird without doing so? This is why I'm not a box score/PER/WS guy, I think there is a lot more to a player than just numbers.

[Silver Bullet]

I hope you guys are watching the game - I don't remember him doing anything in the 4th so far, I don't think he's even touched the ball all quarter.

[kaima]

.

And yes, the Bulls were unbeatable IMO - just like the Lakers were unbeatable, even though the Blazers were up 18 in game 7 of the WCF's and the Kings were one Robert Horry lucky shot away from winning in 01...

02, actually.

And your entire argument is fait accompli, and circular logic at its worst.

Those teams won, ergo they were unbeatable.

Ridiculous.

I absolutely don't think Rodman was one of the 5 best players in the league. But IMO, He was probably one of the 5 best players in the league for that particular team at that point in time.

The above shows that you shouldn't be voting. You're directly violating the precepts inherent to this debate, and the overall vote will be subverted with enough like-minds.

Numerically, you alone could help to tilt the overall picture in a falsified way with enough votes like this one.

[sp6r=underrated]

.

And yes, the Bulls were unbeatable IMO - just like the Lakers were unbeatable, even though the Blazers were up 18 in game 7 of the WCF's and the Kings were one Robert Horry lucky shot away from winning in 01...

02, actually.

And your entire argument is fait accompli, and circular logic at its worst.

Those teams won, ergo they were unbeatable.

Ridiculous.

Totally agree. Just to put the 00 lakers and 02 lakers in perspective. They played 4 elimination games, three of which could have easily gone the other way. Great teams. I would probably (I would have to further analysis), put both in the top 1/2 or maybe top 1/3 all time. Still they weren't anything close to unbeatable.

The 01 lakers, yea they were unbeatable. The 01 Lakers are one of the few teams were I disregard the RS numbers for, because of how massively they dominated the PS.

.
I absolutely don't think Rodman was one of the 5 best players in the league. But IMO, He was probably one of the 5 best players in the league for that particular team at that point in time.

The above shows that you shouldn't be voting. You're directly violating the precepts inherent to this debate, and the overall vote will be subverted with enough like-minds.

Numerically, you alone could help to tilt the overall picture in a falsified way with enough votes like this one.

I think this is taking it too far. If to SB, POY means who were the best players for their individual team, so be it.

Also inconsistencies in ballots are to be expected. I expect everyone will have ballots that don't make sense based on their prior ballots being that the circumstances are never equal season by season.

Side Note: I'll admit my voting criteria is influenced by what other people are using as criteria to vote on. Two Examples: Early on I gave consideration to people who didn't make the PO. I would never do that now, because I see the vast majority of voters won't consider those players. Second, I am giving slight bonus points for the historical significance of the season, just because I've noticed so many other voters do as well.

My POY ballots are not purely who I think were the best individual players in a season.

[Silver Bullet]

.

And yes, the Bulls were unbeatable IMO - just like the Lakers were unbeatable, even though the Blazers were up 18 in game 7 of the WCF's and the Kings were one Robert Horry lucky shot away from winning in 01...

02, actually.

And your entire argument is fait accompli, and circular logic at its worst.

Those teams won, ergo they were unbeatable.

Ridiculous.

I absolutely don't think Rodman was one of the 5 best players in the league. But IMO, He was probably one of the 5 best players in the league for that particular team at that point in time.

The above shows that you shouldn't be voting. You're directly violating the precepts inherent to this debate, and the overall vote will be subverted with enough like-minds.

Numerically, you alone could help to tilt the overall picture in a falsified way with enough votes like this one.

There are no precepts inherent to this debate.

The criteria being used it the same as the one used for the MVP award.

And we very well know there are tons of outliers votes when it comes to the actual MVP voting.
So no need to go on some righteous crusade to paint me as some sort of an imbecile.

I mean, I didn't see any of you guys get on drza for putting Ginobili at 3 ?

And if i were to make an all time ranking, I'd put Rodman over Ginobili a 100 times out of a 100.

[ElGee]

^^^ If by "no one" you mean "other voters," then yes, no one got drza for that vote.

[JordansBulls]

1996-1997

1. M.Jordan - Won Finals MVP (29.5 PER in the finals), finished 2nd in MVP voting, Led in Win Shares on the season and WS per 48 minutes, Was 2nd in Season PER. Led the league in scoring in the season and playoffs. Led in Win Shares in the Playoffs, Was 4th in Playoff PER, All NBA 1st Team And Defense, Led the league in Scoring and won title the same year.

2. K.Malone - All NBA 1st Team And Defense, Won League MVP, 1st in Season PER and 2nd in Win Shares. Was 5th in Playoff Win Shares.

3. Hakeem - Finished 7th in MVP voting, ALL NBA 1st Team and 2nd team Defense (3rd in WS in the playoffs and 3rd in PER in the playoffs)

4. Grant Hill - Finished 3rd in MVP voting (All NBA First Team), Made All NBA 1st team and was 3rd in PER in the season and 3rd in WS.

5. Gary Payton - 2nd team All NBA and 1st Team Defense

HM: Stockton (2nd in Playoff Win Shares, 15th in MVP voting), Scottie Pippen (2nd team All NBA and 1st Team Defense - 5th in playoff WS, 11th in MVP voting), Shaq (9th in MVP, 2nd in Playoff PER), Rice (5th in MVP), T.Hardaway (4th in MVP), Alonzo Mourning (12th in MVP voting)


MJ vs Malone

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y2=1997


Malone led the league in PER
MJ led the league in Win Shares and Win Shares per 48/min as well as scoring.
MJ's finals was also in the top 5 and had a 29.5 PER in them.

In the playoffs, MJ had a 3.9 Win Shares to Malone's 2.2 despite Malone playing 1 more game than MJ. MJ had Malone by 5+ in PER as well and shot a better FG%, had a higher TS%, and his WS/48 was almost double Malone.

While it is true the Bulls were favorite, the Jazz were a #1 seed as well and won 64 games this season. So they really didn't have much of an excuse especially considering they lost Games 1, 5, and 6 by 2, 2 and 4 points.

Also in Game 1 with the score tied and less than 10 seconds left Malone misses both free throws and then MJ hits the game winner.

In Game 5 of that series with 1:08 seconds left in Utah, the Jazz were up 85-84 with 7 seconds
left on the shot clock and Malone proceeds to take a 20 footer and shoot an airball and Marv Albert yells out "Bad Shot and there was plenty of time on the 24 second shot clock".
You can watch that play here: Malone's bad shot at 1:08 mark in the 4th with the Jazz up 85-84 in pivotal game 5 @ the 6:36 mark


MJ comes down hits a free throw and then gets the Offensive board and hits the 3. With 15 seconds left in the game the Bulls inbound the ball and up 1 point and Malone neglects to foul and the Bulls get a dunk.
Game 5 at the 8:50 mark you see that play.


Malone made too many mistakes at too many crucial times in that series.

Remember we are talking about two teams that won 60+ games here and were #1 seeds. So we are talking about championship level teams.


Don't see how it is possible to say Malone was better than MJ that year when MJ still beat him and outperformed him thoroughly in the playoffs even if the regular season was close.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2 ... ormances-4

JORDAN'S STATS
Points per game: 32.3
Boards per game: 7.0
Assists per game: 6.0
PER: 29.5

[JordansBulls]

Well, that doesn't seem to be the same approach to player evaluation you were using a few seasons ago - this is an extremely raw summary of big-3 box score stats.

Furthermore, it's the exact OPPOSITE logic you used in 2009:

Regular Season:

1) Lebron - MVP, All-NBA/All-D(1st), Best record overall
2) Kobe - MVP runner-up, All-NBA/All-D(1st), Best record in West
3) Wade - All-NBA(1st)
4) Dwight - All-NBA/All-D(1st), DPOY
5) Paul - All-NBA(2nd)/All-D(1st)

-Lebron was a monster statwise. He made both the All-NBA & All-D 1st teams. He was the runaway MVP by leading his team to the best record.

-Kobe had a stellar season, and made the All-NBA/All-D 1st teams. He was the MVP runner-up and led LA to the best record in the West.

1) Kobe - Finals MVP, Led team to 3 straight series wins against 50+ win teams
2) Lebron - off the charts stats
3) Dwight
4) Melo
5) Rondo

-Kobe's run was tremendous. When LA needed a win, Kobe came through. His leadership and production all make his 30/5/5 performance the best in the playoffs.

-Lebron was great in the 1st 2 rounds, but I do factor in the competition. Losing to a Magic without their all-star PG, and with HCA is a blackmark.

Final rankings:

1) Kobe
2) Lebron
3) Dwight
4) Wade
5) Melo

Kobe did whatever LA needed to win the title. whether it was to score 40, or to D up Billups or Melo, Kobe did it. From day 1 he was on a mission, and delivered the stats and ring. He was the MVP runner, and Finals MVP. Lebron had better stats, but when put in context of the systems run by LA and Cle, both were comaprable. Not making the Finals despite HCA and with a healthy team puts Bron at #2 for me. The leadership factor was missing with him in the playoffs.

2009 LeBron had more points, rebounds and assists per game (not to mention advanced statistical dominance). He also won the MVP and finished all-nba 1st and all-nba D...

Actually, you just showed that I have been consistent with my evaluations. First, you must have missed this line in my words about 1997...."If Malone had faltered and lost in the earlier rounds, then MJ would be #1, but I can't penalize Malone for losing in 6 to the better team."

If Malone had lost to a lesser team like Bron did in 2009, then MJ would have been #1. If Lebron had made the FInals and taken LA to 6 games in a close series, he would have gotten the #1 ranking in 2009.

So that means Dwight should have been over Kobe in 2009.
He had better numbers over Kobe in the regular season.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y2=2009

Dwight had a higher PER, TS%, Win Share amount in the season.

And he (Dwight) lost to a superior team in the finals. It's not his fault he missed 2 free throws in game 4 near the end of the game.
Had Dwight lost in earlier rounds then I can see Kobe over him.

That is the same exact thing you are doing with MJ vs Malone in 1997.

[An Unbiased Fan]

So that means Dwight should have been over Kobe in 2009.
He had better numbers over Kobe in the regular season.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y2=2009

Dwight had a higher PER, TS%, Win Share amount in the season.

And he (Dwight) lost to a superior team in the finals. It's not his fault he missed 2 free throws in game 4 near the end of the game.
Had Dwight lost in earlier rounds then I can see Kobe over him.

That is the same exact thing you are doing with MJ vs Malone in 1997.

I don't judge a player on their PER, or WS. You should know that by now. Otherwise, I wouldn't have put MJ at #1 in 98'.

Kobe was better than Dwight in the RS, and better in the PS in 09'. Therefore I ranked him higher.

[JordansBulls]

So that means Dwight should have been over Kobe in 2009.
He had better numbers over Kobe in the regular season.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y2=2009

Dwight had a higher PER, TS%, Win Share amount in the season.

And he (Dwight) lost to a superior team in the finals. It's not his fault he missed 2 free throws in game 4 near the end of the game.
Had Dwight lost in earlier rounds then I can see Kobe over him.

That is the same exact thing you are doing with MJ vs Malone in 1997.

I don't judge a player on their PER, or WS. You should know that by now.

Kobe was better than Dwight in the RS, and better in the PS in 09'.

How was he better in the RS over Dwight, when Dwight produced more Win Shares, had a higher PER, a higher TS%, etc?
I agree Kobe was better in the PS than Dwight in 2009. Just like in 1997 and 1998 Jordan was better than Malone in the PS. In 1997 they were equal in the RS and Malone better in the RS in 1998.

As stated before, if you get both season and finals mvp the same season, there really isn't a case for someone else over you.