Retro POY '79-80 (Voting Complete)

[ElGee]

Long feature on Kareem coming out of his shell: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

Great article.

Not to derail the conversation about cluster headaches, but the one basketball tidbit that jumped out to me was Kareem giving credit to LA actually getting some size in Chones, Haywood and Landsberger.

Indeed, their rebounding differential went from -268 in 1979 to +184 in 1980 -- although if we use the methods discussed in the thread in the statistical forum on individual rebounding impact, Magic is also a major driving factor in that differential. In 1981, with Magic missing 45 games, they were only +4 (Kareem's rebound declined again, Lansberger, a big rebounder, increased minutes. Wilkes, a below average rebounder positional, also declined from 80 to 81.)

So, just to echo what I was saying yesterday, I think Magic's role in 1980 was an all-around one. (Musberger says in G1 of the Finals "he is inventing a new position.") In that game, he scored on a backdoor cut from Kareem, followed a missed layup on a fastbreak, scored a layup on a 4-2 break, and scored on a goaltend on another putback. That's 50% of his scoring in the game.

So he's a positive in rebounding, passing, running some point, running the break and only taking high percentage shots. The negatives are high turnovers and a peripheral scoring role.

Now, I also watched G6 (for the first time in a few years), and as is the case every time, my head darn near exploded.

I think part of the issue, which Bill Russell alludes to, is that Philly wasn't sure how to defend him because they'd never seen Magic captaining the ship (size gives up quickness, quickness gives up size). Also, the dude is just locked in. He's reigning jumpers in from all over the court, throwing in hook shots over Philly's bigs and flying by their guards for layups and dunks.

But it's only one game, and I think someone like Brandon Jennings is exactly why it's a very fuzzy game to think "Magic could have played like this all year." What if Magic has that game to start the season instead of ending it? What if he never has a game like that again? Which, in fact, is what happened -- one could argue that was the best game of his career. I believe it was his career high...until 87.

[Sedale Threatt]

I don't think it's very fuzzy at all to assume he could have scored a couple of more points per game pretty easily, or handled a similar role to what Bird did in Boston. That said, Larry is the one who actually did it, so it's only proper to give him credit for that.

1. Kareem. Yeah, I do think this was pretty easy. Best all-around player in the game.

2. Malone. Probably should go with Dr. J here, but I really like what Moses brings to the table as a dominant inside scorer and rebounder.

3. Erving. A great all-around season with no massive flaws. Didn't really go off in the Finals except for one game (a loss), but that seems like nit-picking.

4. Bird. Could have easily gone with Magic here, especially with Game 6 in mind. But in the name of fairness, I'll buy the argument that Larry was more valuable while Buck was lucky to be on a team where he could fit in.

5. Johnson. There isn't a doubt in my mind he could/would have had the same impact as Bird did in Boston if put in the same situation. But he wasn't, and Larry was, so...

[Dr Positivity]

5. Johnson. There isn't a doubt in my mind he could/would have had the same impact as Bird did in Boston if put in the same situation. But he wasn't, and Larry was, so...

This is a good point and why I'm leaving Magic off. If the Lakers didn't need him to play PG or be more than the #3/#4 scoring option that's not his fault, but I'm voting for the greatest impact on a season, not the best skillset. So I'm giving Gervin and Moses the edge if simply for the greater responsibility as overwhelmingly the centerpiece of their teams, while Magic shared playmaking duties with Nixon and was behind Kareem and Wilkes as scorers, and he shot less than Nixon

1. Kareem
2. Erving
3. Bird
4. Gervin
5. Moses

HM: Magic

Kareem is obvious #1 and Erving is obvious #2 to me.

Bird turned that team around, led them to 61 wins and the ECF, had a huge mental impact on them. Much more complete all around game than Gervin and Moses, too.

Gervin's Spurs were as good as Moses' Rockets with less talent. Its fits with me that those Spurs only won 41 games with that considered and a coaching change halfway through the way. The Rockets underperformed more IMO with Murphy, Rudy T., Reid, Barry, etc. beside Moses. Both teams were great offensively and sucked defensively, I put the onus on that more on Moses for his team as the team's C. Gervin also got a LOT more love in MVP votes. He got 19 1st place votes and finished ahead of Bird despite the Spurs winning 41 to the Lakers/Philadelphia/Boston all at 59+, which is pretty impressive. With all that together I put Gervin over Moses. And both over Magic for the reason I listed before

[Sedale Threatt]

All due respect, but I don't see any possible reasoning to leave Magic off. Especially not in favor of a one-dimensional gunner like Gervin whose team finished .500 and was out in the first round.

The year before Magic arrived in L.A., the Lakers won 47 games and got their ass kicked in the second round. Kareem was there. Wilkes was there. Nixon was there. They got 60 games out of a young Adrian Dantley. Still not good enough.

Then they get Magic and a handful of decent role players -- viola, instant championship.

How is that not impact?

Kareem was clearly their best player, but I don't understand how Magic's role on that team can be relegated to a mere "skill set."

[ElGee]

Btw, forgot to post this piece last year, and since Marques Johnson is in my top 7, seems fitting to provide it here. NB: it is from the fall of 1980 (beginning of next season). http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

[ElGee]

All due respect, but I don't see any possible reasoning to leave Magic off. Especially not in favor of a one-dimensional gunner like Gervin whose team finished .500 and was out in the first round.

The year before Magic arrived in L.A., the Lakers won 47 games and got their ass kicked in the second round. Kareem was there. Wilkes was there. Nixon was there. They got 60 games out of a young Adrian Dantley. Still not good enough.

Then they get Magic and a handful of decent role players -- viola, instant championship.

How is that not impact?

Kareem was clearly their best player, but I don't understand how Magic's role on that team can be relegated to a mere "skill set."

I can't speak for Mufasa, but what you're saying does not necessarily dictate a top 5 vote:

(1) LA added a bunch of forwards on that team as well.
(2) Kareem played arguably the best ball of his life (Hot Rod sure thought so).
(3) A player could have a major impact on a good team going to great without being a top 5 player. Lamar Odom, Dennis Rodman, Ray Allen, for example.
(4) Even if the player is elite, like Magic, the competition still determines where they would rank. One wouldn't automatically surpass players until an arbitrary cutoff point ("top 5") based solely on your point. Only because this is a weak year is Magic in my final cut.

[Dr Positivity]

Well you could make the same case for the Cavs improving so much after the Mo Williams trade. Not to any way compare Mo to Magic, but I don't like comparing seasonal records from year to year and tieing it to a player for this reason. A player can drastically change a team's record because of how it changes the fit of the team, but that doesn't mean he's necessarily responsible for that change and worth that value in wins, if that makes sense. It doesn't change Wilkes being the team's #2 scorer and Nixon taking at least half the playmaking responsibility. Regardless, Magic could be worth exactly +13 wins this season and it still wouldn't be enough to convince me to put him top 5. Gervin/Moses' teams probably would've dropped at least 13 without them, too.

I'm not saying Magic didn't have a big impact as a player, being top 6 in the league is still really awesome. I mean I put Durant at #6 in 09-10 and he was epic. Just that by the nature of his role on that team, I don't think it was at the level of Gervin and Moses

[Sedale Threatt]

I can't speak for Mufasa, but what you're saying does not necessarily dictate a top 5 vote:

(1) LA added a bunch of forwards on that team as well.
(2) Kareem played arguably the best ball of his life (Hot Rod sure thought so).
(3) A player could have a major impact on a good team going to great without being a top 5 player. Lamar Odom, Dennis Rodman, Ray Allen, for example.
(4) Even if the player is elite, like Magic, the competition still determines where they would rank. One wouldn't automatically surpass players until an arbitrary cutoff point ("top 5") based solely on your point. Only because this is a weak year is Magic in my final cut.

Over a player like Gervin, I think it does.

1. I know Kareem praised them in the SI article, but how much credit do Mark Landesberger and Jim Chones really deserve for the major jump L.A. made? They were never, ever more than role players.

(I leave out Haywood as he passed out in a drug-addled stupor in practice and was suspended for the playoffs; semi-funny sidenote: he was so pissed off about this he allegedly hired a hit man to kill Paul Westhead before reconsidering.)

2. I have nothing negative to say about Kareem -- he was phenomenal throughout the year. Although if we're talking about Hot Rod Hundley, I'm not exactly taking that to the bank. It's just one guy's opinion.

3. Agree for the most part. Although I'd rank what Magic did -- 18/8/7 in the RS, followed by 18/11/9 in the PS with his legendary Game 6, for a championship team -- pretty well above those particular examples.

4. By his definition, it's about impact. And I guess that's what stuck in my craw. How does Gervin's 33 ppg (and almost literally nothing else) on a 41-win team that lost in the first round equate to more impact than Johnson's above-listed contributions?

[Dr Positivity]

4. By his definition, it's about impact. And I guess that's what stuck in my craw. How does Gervin's 33 ppg (and almost literally nothing else) on a 41-win team that lost in the first round equate to more impact than Johnson's above-listed contributions?

Well you yourself voted Moses 2nd for leading only a 41 win team, with a decent amount of talent mind you. So Gervin's case shouldn't be counted out just because the Spurs didn't win as much as the Lakers, no?

There is no exact impact measure out there, but IMO... Gervin's high % 33ppg had more impact than Magic's 18/7/7 as half PG and 3rd scoring option super glue guy, this year.

[Sedale Threatt]

Well you could make the same case for the Cavs improving so much after the Mo Williams trade. Not to any way compare Mo to Magic, but I don't like comparing seasonal records from year to year and tieing it to a player for this reason. A player can drastically change a team's record because of how it changes the fit of the team, but that doesn't mean he's necessarily responsible for that change and worth that value in wins, if that makes sense. It doesn't change Wilkes being the team's #2 scorer and Nixon taking at least half the playmaking responsibility. Regardless, Magic could be worth exactly +13 wins this season and it still wouldn't be enough to convince me to put him top 5. Gervin/Moses' teams probably would've dropped at least 13 without them, too.

Generally, I agree. I remember having an argument with bastillon about Kareem not making any impact on the Lakers the year after he was traded. His point that he didn't, because they didn't substantially improve, and my point was, how do those numbers NOT have impact.

So I see where you're coming from.

At the same time, most -- including you -- are giving Bird credit for turning the Celtics around. Very, very fairly, I'll add. What he did speaks for itself. But it seems to me like something of a double standard to dole out credit to one player and not to another, even though the latter player's team was virtually unchanged save the addition of a handful of solid but hardly great role players.

Especially for a player like Gervin, who scored a ton of points basically because the entire team was geared around him doing that. He didn't do anything else but shoot. Didn't play defense. Didn't create for others. Nothing. So I guess my reaction to his impact, in light of what the Spurs did, is "big deal."

Now, having just said that, in my mind I'm starting to wonder, "What's the difference between Gervin here and Bryant in 06?" Granted, Bryant is twice the playmaker Gervin was, and played more defense in one game than he might in an entire week, and San Antonio probably had a smidge more talent, but still -- the parallels are there. And I'm fairly certain I voted Bryant in the top two or three. So why is this chafing?

I guess I have a hard time not seeing Magic in the top five, for what he brought to the table, and how his team benefited as a result. I get ElGee's point about that not necessarily equating to a top five vote. But this was a lot more than just a skill set showing up and filling in wherever needed, in my opinion.

[ElGee]

(1) Small amount. My point was there are not only other factors, but other players, and I consider rebounding to be important in team success.

(2) Yes, Hundley. Just one guy's opinion. I might agree though -- Cap had the complete game in 1980. It's outside the scope of the project to go any further there though...

(3) I really want to emphasize where those statistics come from (and want to be clear not to minimize Magic - I hold him in high esteem historically). Per 75 possessions (that's 40 minutes in a 90 possession game, just below today's average pace ) it's 17.1/7.3/7.0.

Consider a slight assists inflation for LA and that his points are coming, to a considerable degree, because he's playing in a peripheral role, and it's a little different than looking at a line like Pippen's circa 96 and thinking it's the "same." Although I don't think it's the worst comparison (defensive impact aside).

(4) Definitely thinking about this a lot. Gave Ice the No. 5 nod in 82 because of historically good scoring. Not sure he's better than either of the Johnson's in 1980 given Magic's stellar postseason.

[Sedale Threatt]

4. By his definition, it's about impact. And I guess that's what stuck in my craw. How does Gervin's 33 ppg (and almost literally nothing else) on a 41-win team that lost in the first round equate to more impact than Johnson's above-listed contributions?

Well you yourself voted Moses 2nd for leading only a 41 win team, with a decent amount of talent mind you. So Gervin's case shouldn't be counted out just because the Spurs didn't win as much as the Lakers, no?

There is no exact impact measure out there, but IMO... Gervin's high % 33ppg had more impact than Magic's 18/7/7 as half PG and 3rd scoring option super glue guy, this year.

It's a good point, but I think Moses was so much better than Ice. He wasn't as good an all-around center as Kareem, but he at least totally dominated in a couple of different areas, as opposed to just one with George. Granted, what Gervin did, he was the absolute best, but he almost literally brought nothing else to the table.

Living in San Antonio, I remember hearing an interview from one of the role players on those teams -- Coby Dietrich or somebody like that -- talking about how lucky Gervin was to be on a team that not only was built to maximize his game, but didn't resent him for monopolizing the offense while doing so little in other areas.

It was like a running joke on the team -- Dr. No, as in no defense, no rebounding and no passing. Malone had his big flaws too, but not nearly that many.

[Sedale Threatt]

(1) Small amount. My point was there are not only other factors, but other players, and I consider rebounding to be important in team success.

No question rebounding is critical. But in addition to all he brought to the table -- the creativity, the versatility, the intangibles -- Magic contributed mightily in this area as well, didn't he?

He was rebounded at basically the same rate as Chones and Haywood did. Landesberger was way out in front of all the additions, but he only played in 23 games, and averaged like 12 minutes in the PS, so how much impact could he have?

(2) Yes, Hundley. Just one guy's opinion. I might agree though -- Cap had the complete game in 1980. It's outside the scope of the project to go any further there though...

Kareem was awesome, no question. Pretty easily the best player in the game this year.

(3) I really want to emphasize where those statistics come from (and want to be clear not to minimize Magic - I hold him in high esteem historically). Per 75 possessions (that's 40 minutes in a 90 possession game, just below today's average pace ) it's 17.1/7.3/7.0.

Consider a slight assists inflation for LA and that his points are coming, to a considerable degree, because he's playing in a peripheral role, and it's a little different than looking at a line like Pippen's circa 96 and thinking it's the "same." Although I don't think it's the worst comparison (defensive impact aside).

Noted about the stats.

But I think your choice of the word "peripheral" here strikes at exactly what's bothering me here, and the way Magic's role is being portrayed. When I think peripheral, I'm thinking fringe, on the edge. To me, Magic's impact was the exact opposite -- he contributed in a huge way in just about every manner but shot blocking upon his arrival in L.A.

Add everything up into a composite picture, and he was pretty clearly the second-best player, both in production and responsibility, on a championship team.

Which, as you noted, doesn't automatically equate to a Top 5 vote. But if it's achieved the way Magic did, I think it does.

[ElGee]

Oh, I agree with you on both (1) and (3). Man, do we need Google Wave in here.

As I mentioned in a previous post, Magic was a driving force in that rebounding differential. It's one of his biggest contributions to the team in 80 from what I can tell.

And I'm using the word "peripheral" (or at times "secondary") strictly about offensive structure/roles. The genesis of that was because people looked at the ppg and TS% at face value, which makes Magic look comparable or even better than Bird in that regard, and I think that's a really misguided way to interpret those statistics.

[Sedale Threatt]

It was nit-picking, I know. It just gave me a platform to better explain my opinion.

[ronnymac2]

Btw, forgot to post this piece last year, and since Marques Johnson is in my top 7, seems fitting to provide it here. NB: it is from the fall of 1980 (beginning of next season). http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

According to this article, there isn't a guard better than Magic. Interesting.....

You know, I really like Marques Johnson. Some time soon, I'm going to go back and look at his whole career and see where he ranks in an all-time sense. I never really knew much about this guy until this project.

He didn't have good playoff stats this year, but he pushed a superb defensive team that was superior to his own to seven games. The champion Lakers had to defeat Seattle. For now, knowing what I know about their individual seasons, I have to put George Gervin over Marques Johnson. When it comes down to these types of comparisons, not having black marks usually gives you a great chance. Gervin doesn't have any black marks this year. He has a decent amount of pluses on his side, including a scoring title and an admirable playoff run.

An aside about Iceman: From what I've seen, his game is basically to catch the ball and immediately attack in some fashion. He's a good ball-handler, but clearly not elite like a T-Mac, Kobe, or Wade type of scorer, in neither ability nor role. He's a somewhat underrated passer though. He botches easy passes, but he does draw attention and he does make useful passes, especially when he catches and slashes and quickly reads where help is coming from and squirts the ball to a teammate. His finishing ability is terrific, as he takes large, deliberate steps like Manu Ginobili -corkscrewing and knifing and side-stepping- before taking off and floating and swooping like Clyde Drexler or Julius Erving, with just a bit less hops. Very good mid-range jump shooter. Average to below average in everything else.

Suffice it to say, Gervin better really bring it in the scoring column, or else he's useless. He needs to produce points for me to seriously consider him as a candidate. He DID do that this year.


This year can't be any more difficult for me. What do I, the rookie hater, do with Magic and Bird? Especially since Bird played well, and Magic had a GOAT performance, and the secondary level of stars this year isn't too strong. What about Jabbar? He's EASILY my RPOY if he doesn't get hurt and miss game six. But I mean....I knocked Magic down to fourth in 1989. I've been debating with myself whether I was wrong to do that, though. I think I should have only used that as a tiebreaker to put Jordan, Magic's equal imo, ahead. Considering that I don't think anybody is Jabbar's equal this year, and that he WAS there for five finals games, I'm leaning towards just granting Jabbar the top spot.

He really was awesome this year.

Moses and Julius are straight forward for me. I know what I'm getting from them. I know how to judge them.

I'm going to finish watching Magic's GOAT performance and do a little more research/reading of the fantastic discussion this thread is offering before I vote.

[ElGee]

^^^ Careful, you watch G6 and you're likely to put Magic at No. 1. That performance is not normal.

G2 was really good. I'd recommend that.

[Doctor MJ]

Well you could make the same case for the Cavs improving so much after the Mo Williams trade. Not to any way compare Mo to Magic, but I don't like comparing seasonal records from year to year and tieing it to a player for this reason. A player can drastically change a team's record because of how it changes the fit of the team, but that doesn't mean he's necessarily responsible for that change and worth that value in wins, if that makes sense. It doesn't change Wilkes being the team's #2 scorer and Nixon taking at least half the playmaking responsibility. Regardless, Magic could be worth exactly +13 wins this season and it still wouldn't be enough to convince me to put him top 5. Gervin/Moses' teams probably would've dropped at least 13 without them, too.

I'm not saying Magic didn't have a big impact as a player, being top 6 in the league is still really awesome. I mean I put Durant at #6 in 09-10 and he was epic. Just that by the nature of his role on that team, I don't think it was at the level of Gervin and Moses

There was some response to this but just to be clear: Record improvement is being talked about here FOR Magic partly it's the main thing people are using AGAINST Magic this year. The argument for Bird over Magic largely resides with that point, so someone defending Magic's impact this way makes perfect sense.

Now you can say that says nothing about Magic vs Gervin/Moses - but then you better have both Gervin/Moses ahead of both Magic & Bird - which very few people ever considered correct.

[ronnymac2]

^^^ Careful, you watch G6 and you're likely to put Magic at No. 1. That performance is not normal.

G2 was really good. I'd recommend that.

I'll try. I want to see game five, too. Something about this series and 40/15 performances......

[ronnymac2]

Garnett? Kidd? Young Kobe? Oscar? Lebron? Who was Magic like the most in this game?

IMHO...he just looks like peak Magic. So he didn't look like anybody else. He was unique.

This game six resembles the 07 series between the Warriors and the Mavericks in that the underdog plays loosely and freely and is the agressor, while the favorite plays tentatively, out of character, and unable to effectively counter their opponent's new strategy with any sort of equalizer. Philly played badly. The only Sixers that played well were Julius, Steve Mix, and in the fourth quarter, Bobby Jones. Dr. J tried to take the game in his hands late like a true superstar is supposed to do, so I can't really take anything away from him. He did his duty as an individual.

Jim Chones played that "amazing role player game" that every champion needs. Wilkes had the hot hand, Nixon outplayed Cheeks despite shooting 1-10, Cooper played courageously after being inserted into the starting line-up, and Magic engineered the Laker attack with every ability he had in his skill-set. I saw him walk the ball up, pass it, then post up on the block and attack. I saw him pass from said position; I also saw him pass from the high post. His transition passing looked like 85 Magic (he made this one play where he faked a pass, did a side-step thing-a-ma-jig, and made this crazy pass that the receiver dropped. I clearly didn't describe this properly, but damn....). He attacked from the mid-post and perimeter with quickness that I've rarely seen from Magic. He usually just uses his craftiness to get a step, then uses his body to slow the defender down. But here, he actually accelerates by the defender.

His rebounding is reminiscient of Kobe's game seven. The seven assists were productive, but I was more impressed with how he pushed the pace so LA was always on the attack, made the right passes so other could create, and had a flurry of useful passes that keyed LA's third quarter run. I think his production is actually overvalued in disservice to his effect on the game. His ability to be a mismatch was key. He allowed LA to play quick yet pound Philly on the glass. These are the reasons why the Lakers won.

Great, great game.

What I learned:

Jabbar was still the leader of the team. He was the guts, the heart. He was the base. I think he'll be number one.

Erving has the best chance of making my number two slot after Jabbar. The Doctor impressed.

Magic's game six met the hype for me. More importantly, Magic was a lot better than his REG SEA accolades for the year suggest. Magic vs. Bird will be big. I am leaning towards Bird over Magic right now. Shocking considering how I'm gushing over what I just watched.