Retro POY '92-93 (Voting Complete)

[Gongxi]

Again, how can he justify Hakeem #1 in 1995 when the Rockets went from 58 wins to 47 wins and didn't even have the best numbers in the league? At least in 1993 MJ had the best overall numbers in the league in production. Also the same would apply to Shaq from 2000 to 2001 who won 67 games and then 56 games.

Different standard then. He just switched up for entertainment purposes. I hear in the 70s he's gonna just start ranking people by BMI. Just to change it up a little, keep it fresh.

[Sedale Threatt]

Finally, the Hakeem push did happen earlier when he voted Hakeem 2nd in 96.

True, but that actually made some sense. I think I actually bought it, and had Hakeem up higher as a result.

But here...I'm just not getting it. Jordan should get first just on the strength of his Finals performance alone, let alone the avalanche of other accomplishments/contributions.

In the end, we all have our own opinions, so I shouldn't be complaining. I guess what makes this so distasteful is that it was so easy to predict.

[ItsMillerTime]

ROFL at Jordan being 3rd. Obviously someone did not watch the NBA that year

[ElGee]

LOL at this top 5. These guys had amazing casts and could barely get more wins than people who had nothing.

Let's look at Mark Price vs. Jordan

Cavs: 54 wins
Bulls: 57 wins

And Price did it with a creeky Brad Daughterty, ancient Larry Nance, the chump Craig Ehlo and Lenny Wilkens who wanted out. Jordan had Pippen (dream team), Grant (all-star level), Armstrong (all-star level), Cartwright (best elbows), Paxson (could just go perfect in NBA FInals games whenever he wanted) and GOAT coach Phil Jackson.

Next, you guys are hyping Ewing but he was just a cog in a defensive system. Knicks offense stunk and Oakley, Smith and everyone else are awesome cast and probably GOAT defenders at position. Nonetheless, Pat Riley gets all the credit for the defense. Ewing just sweated a lot.

Meanwhile, the Celtics loss Bird, Parish and McHale were 74 years old and who's helping out Reggie Lewis?? Xavier McDaniel and Kevin Gamble! Please. 48-wins is only 9 less than Bulls with that cast. Chris Ford was clueless coach and Reggie got 48 wins.

Trailblazers won 51 games - only 11 behind Phoenix in Pacific. But Barkley had Westphal coaching and peak Oliver Miller (underrated beast), peak Majerle (defense and setting 3-point records), peak KJ (most underrated player of 90s), peak Dumas (would have been 10-time all star). What did Drexler have? Rick Adelman was coaching, so automatically take off 10-wins. He was lost. He tried to emphasize defense on an offensive team, killing Drexler's numbers and giving young Cliff RObinson too many shots. C'mon, young Rod Strickland? Old Buck Williams? 51-wins from Drexler is amazing.

Kemp won 55-games. All he had was young Payton. 55-games with Young Payton or 57-games with prime Pippen, which is better? The casts after that aren't even close -- Rickey Pierce and Eddie Johnson vs. Grant and Phil Jackson. C'mon.

I'm thinking Price, Drexler, Lewis, Kemp, Jordan in that order.

DId I do it right??

This is why I hate these reverse-engineered arguments...we might have to do it in 1958 for guidance, I don't think we have to in 1993.

[mysticbb]

We've had bandwagons for Kobe, Dirk, KG, Robinson, and now this. Am I missing anyone?

We had that? In which season?

[Sedale Threatt]

There might have been only one guy on it, but it was there.

[ElGee]

Again, how can he justify Hakeem #1 in 1995 when the Rockets went from 58 wins to 47 wins and didn't even have the best numbers in the league? At least in 1993 MJ had the best overall numbers in the league in production. Also the same would apply to Shaq from 2000 to 2001 who won 67 games and then 56 games.

Different standard then. He just switched up for entertainment purposes. I hear in the 70s he's gonna just start ranking people by BMI. Just to change it up a little, keep it fresh.

I'm using shoe size in the 1960's. Back then, there was a 0.92 R^2 value to success, as defined by extrapolated team wins from individual play.

[bastillon]

well, apparently Pippen isn't a TOP25 player ever, Phil isn't a strong candidate for GOAT coach, Grant isn't one of the best role players of all-time, BJ or Paxson or whatever other role players he played with didn't do their damn jobs with a great consistency and clutchness. I mean if Jordan was playing better than the very best version of Hakeem and Bulls were slightly above their top competition, then someone of this cast is severely overrated.

maybe Pippen is Robert Parish that was made better by Michael. maybe Phil was just a mediocre coach benefiting from MJ as well. I guess you could use those arguments in '93, but having the advantage of looking back how those Bulls did without him the year later and still not questioning this stance is to me a clear evidence of Jordan living off of his reputation.

everyone is simply assuming that this is absolute best Jordan pushing his team to maximum level and playing like a GOAT. if the worst version of pre-retirement MJ is still better than the best version of Hakeem whose 93-95 period could be argued as the best prime ever alongside Shaq, Bird etc, then this means 92 Jordan was far, far better than any player ever, including KAJ, Russ or Magic... or Hakeem himself. you would be arguing that 92 Jordan wasn't in any way, shape or form comparable to prime Hakeem (he would be much better by that evaluation).

I guess JordansBulls thinks so, but do I give a damn about a guy whose analysis ends with PER and WS and never wrote a post relating to basketball ability ? does Brian Scalabrine scare the **** out of Lakers in this year's finals ?

no and no. hell no.

Again, how can he justify Hakeem #1 in 1995 when the Rockets went from 58 wins to 47 wins and didn't even have the best numbers in the league? At least in 1993 MJ had the best overall numbers in the league in production. Also the same would apply to Shaq from 2000 to 2001 who won 67 games and then 56 games.

I would rank Hakeem 93 > Hakeem 95, so if that was supposed to question my consistency at least make some sense, even with your heavily doubtful numbers based on questionable math and arbitrary, cherry picked stats. news for you: nobody played at the level of Hakeem in '93 (or Barkley...)

my understanding is that Jordan fans never recognized his drop-off, namely in scoring efficiency, inconsistency and defense. not that I expected anything more. you assumed he was as good as his best version and now seem like I disemboweled your god(dess) sanctuary because I put two players widely recognized as having great prime ahead of him, not really considering that their best versions could be actually better than Jordan's worst (it had been his worst at the time). now these two players in their absolute peak form are suddenly dismissed from the comparison and nobody truly considers them in the debate just because he's Jordan and can't be as low as 3 (I mean there were some people wondering, but not one put Jordan lower than 1st so this is an unanimous choice).

from what I know about Kevin Garnett, he can't play for a 30W team because he's just too damn good individually not to push his team more... or actually that migth have been true if it hadn't happened already. this examples is just to show you that your name isn't everything. I'm not comparing KG to Jordan and all here. it's just that some "uncomfortable" circumstances can coincide all together (great competition - top years from two epic players, down year for MJ) and no conclusions are safe.

the funniest thing in this thread is that everyone recognized Jordan, Barkley and Olajuwon as clear top3 and close to each other, but now everyone is out of their minds because I put him 3rd. I'm gonna call it sacred cow syndrome as I have a feeling it's gonna come back.

[Sedale Threatt]

I think "sacred cow syndrome" is an excellent way to describe your vote. Your sacred cow just happens to be different than everyone else's.

[ElGee]

well, apparently Pippen isn't a TOP25 player ever, Phil isn't a strong candidate for GOAT coach, Grant isn't one of the best role players of all-time, BJ or Paxson or whatever other role players he played with didn't do their damn jobs with a great consistency and clutchness. I mean if Jordan was playing better than the very best version of Hakeem and Bulls were slightly above their top competition, then someone of this cast is severely overrated.

the funniest thing in this thread is that everyone recognized Jordan, Barkley and Olajuwon as clear top3 and close to each other, but now everyone is out of their minds because I put him 3rd. I'm gonna call it sacred cow syndrome as I have a feeling it's gonna come back.

No - someone in the cast isn't overrated. Notice you didn't mention a single thing about Jordan or his play, but are trying to reverse-engineer Jordan's contributions by framing the players around him.

The difference in wins is easily accounted for by schedule, fatigue, ceiling effects, variance/luck and just the simple human element that in 1993 EVERY NBA team was jacked up to play the Bulls and no one cared about playing the Houston Rockets. Wins are a team stat, not an individual one.

And the problem is not that you have Jordan at No. 3. It's how you have him at No. 3. People not only think it's weak but it's also the opposite of your own criteria. You said "I will use playoffs primarily" and you didn't mention this RS wins "argument" in 1995 for Hakeem, and suddenly it's popping up here in 1993 to place someone over Michael Jordan. That someone happens to be Hakeem.

[Sedale Threatt]

...and Bulls were slightly above their top competition, then someone of this cast is severely overrated.

This is the part I don't get. This seems to be the entire thrust of your argument, that the Bulls only won 57 games.

Who cares? It's not like it cost them anything. They still won the championship, beating two teams with better records along the way.

And absolutely, positively LOL at "living off his reputation." Scoring nearly 33 a night, with solid defense, in the regular season, then ramping it up to 35 a night in the playoffs, with a record performance in the Finals, is "living off his reputation"?

Seriously?

[mysticbb]

There might have been only one guy on it, but it was there.

Well, I can only think of me as someone who posted a lot about Nowitzki. And only in 2003 my vote was really complete different, with him being 2nd. But I didn't make up any stuff to justify that. Nowitzki was 2nd in +/- and had the 2nd most WS that season. The Mavs made the WCF and imho lost only to the Spurs because of Nowitzki's injury. Duncan won it all, thus nobody else which would fit as a 2nd applying my standard went further (O'Neal or T-Mac that season).

And I pointed out that Nowitzki got clearly less POY shares compared to MVP shares in our project, while Bryant or Garnett got clearly more. If there was ever a Dirk bandwaggon, that must be the smallest one here around. ;)

[bastillon]

so now Hakeem, often regarded as top7 of all-time based on his peak, is a sacred cow, because I'm putting his best version ahead of Jordan's worst pre-retirement ? right.

well, apparently Pippen isn't a TOP25 player ever, Phil isn't a strong candidate for GOAT coach, Grant isn't one of the best role players of all-time, BJ or Paxson or whatever other role players he played with didn't do their damn jobs with a great consistency and clutchness. I mean if Jordan was playing better than the very best version of Hakeem and Bulls were slightly above their top competition, then someone of this cast is severely overrated.

this is mainly my argument. if someone can actually argue against it and not call me for my biases, then I'll be convinced.

allegedly significantly better than top10 player based on his prime during his absolute best year +
GOAT coach +
TOP25 ever in prime +
borderline all-star/all-defense +
great role players
= 57W ?

merely better than their playoff opponents ? unless your basketball math skills are nonexistent, it's easy to see something's not right with this equation. conclusion: someone is overrated. tell me who. my money is on Jordan here. I can't see any other explanation having seen what happened in 94.

[ElGee]

^^^ I thought I just did...?

[JordansBulls]

so now Hakeem, often regarded as top7 of all-time based on his peak, is a sacred cow, because I'm putting his best version ahead of Jordan's worst pre-retirement ? right.

well, apparently Pippen isn't a TOP25 player ever, Phil isn't a strong candidate for GOAT coach, Grant isn't one of the best role players of all-time, BJ or Paxson or whatever other role players he played with didn't do their damn jobs with a great consistency and clutchness. I mean if Jordan was playing better than the very best version of Hakeem and Bulls were slightly above their top competition, then someone of this cast is severely overrated.

this is mainly my argument. if someone can actually argue against it and not call me for my biases, then I'll be convinced.

allegedly significantly better than top10 player based on his prime during his absolute best year +
GOAT coach +
TOP25 ever in prime +
borderline all-star/all-defense +
great role players
= 57W ?

merely better than their playoff opponents ? unless your basketball math skills are nonexistent, it's easy to see something's not right with this equation. conclusion: someone is overrated. tell me who. my money is on Jordan here. I can't see any other explanation having seen what happened in 94.

Pippen wasn't a top 25 player ever in 1993. And Phil Jackson wasn't even a top 7 coach all time at that point. That is where you are mistaken. Also in the playoffs that year, Pippen was 4th on the team in Win Shares and 3rd in PER and was 8th in WS/PER 48 minutes as well.

And despite all of that MJ still had a higher WS and WS per 48 minutes than Hakeem in both the season and playoffs.

Not to mention the Rox and Sonics were both 55-27 that year, which means the Rox should have won the series as well.

[TrueLAfan]

Don't want to get into it too much, but it's true that Jordan, Barkley, and Hakeem were the consensus Top 3 during the regular season. The MVP vote that year was relatively close between them. But Jordan had, even by his standards, a great postseason, along with perhaps his best Finals performance. That was enough to push him ahead for me and, I suspect, others.

[Gongxi]

But...why wasn't regular season shortcoming a factor in 95? I thought you were all about the playoffs, bastillon, what happened there?

[bastillon]

No - someone in the cast isn't overrated. Notice you didn't mention a single thing about Jordan or his play, but are trying to reverse-engineer Jordan's contributions by framing the players around him.

The difference in wins is easily accounted for by schedule, fatigue, ceiling effects, variance/luck and just the simple human element that in 1993 EVERY NBA team was jacked up to play the Bulls and no one cared about playing the Houston Rockets. Wins are a team stat, not an individual one.

that's because I put a lot of emphasis on how individual stats translate to wins. being fan of Nash, you should know better. now MJ's stats have been translating into wins... in general. this year, though, record doesn't reflect his individual accomplishments.

schedule, fatigue etc. what's your evidence supporting that ? I can argue all those factors favored Bulls, so unless you provide something stronger, this isn't really a good argument to back-up your statement in this debate.

And the problem is not that you have Jordan at No. 3. It's how you have him at No. 3. People not only think it's weak but it's also the opposite of your own criteria. You said "I will use playoffs primarily" and you didn't mention this RS wins "argument" in 1995 for Hakeem, and suddenly it's popping up here in 1993 to place someone over Michael Jordan. That someone happens to be Hakeem.

well I think Hakeem was better in the playoffs too... :shruggs:
27/14/5/2/5 isn't some pedestrian playoffs. go look at how teams played him in those playoffs. Seattle triple teamed him repeatedly and don't even get me started on Clippers. Horry wasn't even a legit 3P shooter at the time (and Maxwell was never that, obviously).

Who cares? It's not like it cost them anything. They still won the championship, beating two teams with better records along the way.

fair enough. my point is that they should've been head and shoulders above their playoff competition and it was never the case. either those guys were overrated or Jordan. if this was 93, I'd think it's Pippen/Phil/Grant etc. it's 2010 though. I've seen what these guys are capable of without Jordan. this strongly convinces me it's Jordan who was overrated at the time, not those guys. clearly talent wise nobody should be even remotely close, kind of like 96 all over again.

also, let's not pretend Bulls won this title so easily. NYK and Suns series could both go either way.

[sp6r=underrated]

The Mavs made the WCF and imho lost only to the Spurs because of Nowitzki's injury.)

OT: Your humble opinion is wrong. The Mavs were down by 16 with about 8 minutes to go in the 4th quarter of game 3 when he got injured. Spurs dominated game 2 and game 3 and led almost the entire way in game 1 and only lost the lead in the final moments because of epic foul shooting by Dallas. I think they hit something like 40 in a row in that game

[sp6r=underrated]

And Phil Jackson wasn't even a top 7 coach all time at that point. That is where you are mistaken.

I agree with you about MJ over Hakeem but this is just silly. PJ may not have had the resume of a top 7 coach all time at that point, but he clearly was easily a top 2-3 coach in ability in 1992 or 1993.