RealGM Top 100 #4

[rrravenred]

Magic 29-3 in series with HCA
Bird 24-7 in series with HCA
Wilt 13-5 in series with HCA

Series with HCA vs 50+ win teams and non-50 win teams.

Code: Select all

 vs 50 win teams/non-50 win teams
Wilt:     4-3 (57%)/   9-2 (82%)
Magic:    9-2 (82%)/   20-1 (95%)
Bird:     10-6 (63%)/  14-1 (93%)


Have you broken those down by SRS, out of interst?

[Gongxi]

Are you implying there's something more telling about individual players than their teams' record with HCA?

[drza]

When people talk about Wilt vs Russell, or Kareem (vs Walton), or Hakeem vs, say, Duncan, often the general idea is that the Wilt/Kareem/Hakeem player in the comp was just as good as the other guy in general but was also a better scorer so thus must have really been the better player overall. After all, to many, high efficiency scoring is the most important individual talent that a player can have. So, if the non-scorer was more successful it can only be due to some nebulous intangibles and/or stronger supporting casts and/or just better team success confusing the issue over the better individual.

But I wonder.

I wonder if maybe, just maybe, high volume individual scoring (even at high efficiency) is not quite as valuable as we'd intuitively think it is. Doc MJ's blog entry on Wilt Chamberlain isn't exactly light reading, but perhaps there is truth in it. To a point, yeah, it's great to have a consistent scoring source. But when we look at these great individual scoring savants, it rarely results in the kind of impact we'd think it would.

I'm the least "count the rings" kind of guy that there is, so that's not where I'm going with this. But, I AM an impact +/- kind of guy. And to the extent such analysis is possible from previous generations, every indication is that it was the savants at things other than just volume scoring (high efficiency or not) that produced the biggest impacts. Russell and Walton with their passing and defense. Magic and bird with their beautiful offense. And this generation it's been Garnett and Duncan as the +/- kings, with Dirk and Nash and their offense not that far behind. But none of these guys are high volume, ball dominant scorers. Yes, when it all comes together like 1967 Wilt or 1971 Kareem or every championship in the 90s led by Jordan or Hakeem (and yes, I'm aware that a whole decade running counter to my claim is a weakness, but bear with me here as I'm working this out on the fly) or even early 2000s Shaq...it can be a beautiful thing.

But on the whole, I find that the deeper I look into basketball history and the more I learn, the more convincing it seems to me that it's not a fluke that the biggest impact guys are generally not the dominant scorers. I don't think that's a coincidence.

[rrravenred]

Are you implying there's something more telling about individual players than their teams' record with HCA?

Perish the thought.

[ElGee]

drza, I don't think anyone's read the darn post, or much of the theoretical ideas about Wilt. I've asked if any of the people who voted for him read it (bc the number of links to my post from this thread was like 4) and no one responded. A few Wilt voters have simply posted ballots and not much else.

It's baffling to me -- much of this has already been debated about Wilt, but if the substance here would be in the rebuttal/ensuing discussion. Instead it seems like a drop-in, vote, drop-out move, counter-points be damned. *shrugs*

(For transparency I have Wilt No. 7 right now)

[ronnymac2]

Ronny, I actually don't get this line of thinking. "When programmed correctly" is just another way to say "potentially." But I assume you don't mean it that literally, as in "if Ricky Davis were programmed correctly, he could have been a HOFer." But even so, in this context it just sounds like you are deferring to his peak (which might be your MO - did you vote Wilt 3rd over KAJ?).

I was voting KAJ at number one from day one.

When I say programmed correctly, I mean how all of Wilt's coaches used him differently throughout his career.

Mcguire said volume score, and during certain years, with his role as high-volume scorer, he was at or around being the best player in the league.

He started shifting into an all-around player. Hannum gave him orders in 1967 to really concentrate on being an all-around player- facilitate, efficiently score, defend and rebound. He was at or near being the best player in the league using that style of play for a few years.

Finally, he started becoming super-Tyson Chandler offensively while maintaining his excellent defensive work. In that role, he was at or near the top of the league.

A coach can program Wilt to be whatever type of C he wants, and Wilt will be at or near the top of the league. That's insane. That shows what type of talent Wilt had.

Like I said before, however, there is a catch. After you've programmed him, he rarely deviates from that role for the time period. He doesn't shift gears well.

He's the lead soldier out in the field, and he's damn near unstoppable, catching two grenades with one hand at the same time and flinging them 100 yards into the enemy territory. The original orders for Team Stilt only called for the team to make it a certain distance. Now, however, high command needs Team Stilt to move in further, but communication was cut off during the firefight. The instinctive soldier- the Russell, the Hakeem, the Shaq- would see what high command sees, and would march further and continue on. Wilt is satisfied with the great work he has done already. He wasn't ordered to shift gears- to change plans mid-battle in order to provide what his overall side needed at the right time (the playoffs)- so he peels his helmet off and rubs an apple on his sleeve.

That's what I mean by programming him correctly. If you program him correctly based on the team you have around him, you might get a GOAT team with Wilt as the foundation. If he isn't programmed correctly based on the team around him, you're probably going to underachieve in the playoffs a little bit.

[UDRIH14]

A few Wilt voters have simply posted ballots and not much else.

It's baffling to me -- much of this has already been debated about Wilt, but if the substance here would be in the rebuttal/ensuing discussion. Instead it seems like a drop-in, vote, drop-out move, counter-points be damned. *shrugs*

(For transparency I have Wilt No. 7 right now)

reason being the other 3 guys already voted ahead of him, who ppl think wilt is on there lvl and shouldnt be lower then them, when there are guys behind wilt, russell, kareem, magic can all plead a case to take over that ranking spot.

[Doctor MJ]

drza, I don't think anyone's read the darn post, or much of the theoretical ideas about Wilt. I've asked if any of the people who voted for him read it (bc the number of links to my post from this thread was like 4) and no one responded. A few Wilt voters have simply posted ballots and not much else.

It's baffling to me -- much of this has already been debated about Wilt, but if the substance here would be in the rebuttal/ensuing discussion. Instead it seems like a drop-in, vote, drop-out move, counter-points be damned. *shrugs*

(For transparency I have Wilt No. 7 right now)

For the record I've had 10 hits from these threads to the Chamberlain Theory article. I felt like that was pretty encouraging, though I have no idea what those people thought of it. Would be nice to get rebuttals.

Conversations I have had have been solid. For example, Sedale and I clearly think differently, but I get where he's coming from and vice versa.

Anyone who has sided with Wilt though without really getting into the debate, I'd encourage you to give it a shot. I understand some people are probably in the mental place where they don't quite understand the criticisms, but aren't willing to cede their opinion simply because someone else knows some jargon they don't. That's fine, just don't let that be a barrier to learning more.

[lorak]

My #4 is Magic, and it's pretty easy.

First, everyone who doesn't understand Magic over Bird should review the RPOY project. I know it came as a shock to a lot of the participants that Magic did so much better than Bird in their own votes.

Looking at season by season from '80 to '91 Magic was better than Bird exactly as many times as Bird better than Magic (6-6). Of course Magic have more overall shares (on the other hand Bird have more MVP shares), but it's rather because of Bird injury than because of Magic was better player.

What's interesting in Magic vs Bird debate is how easily Johnson gets free pass on his flaws during first half of his career. Conflict with coach, with Nixon, "tragic Johnson" finals... that's awful stuff and shows how far from Bird was Magic in terms of being complete basketball player during ~first half of his career.

[Warspite]

Trying not to sound arrogant and condecending but advocating for Wilt Chamberlain over Shaq or Hakeem or Duncan is like trying to argue the sky is blue or that water is wet. If you want to argue that Duncan is better than 45 or 50yr old Wilt then thats a debate. If you think Shaq could can beat Wilt in a 3pt shooting contest thats a debate.

The fact that WIlts detractors attack him for his personality or his intangibles or his leadership skills is for the most part an admission that Wilt aside from the FT line has no weaknesses.

Its sad that we consider Ewing a loser because Starks went 1-19 and that we consider WIlt a loser for only winiing 2 titles when the refs fixed 1 series that he lost, his coach refused to let him back in the game one yr and his teammates shot 20% from the field in 68.

The Celtics were a better team than most of Wilts teams and they still needed luck to overcome Wilt. Hondo has to steal the ball, Greer has to go cold, the refs have to fix games and Still Wilt takes the Celtics to 7 games every yr.

Still if voters were GMs and they could have any player still on the board they would all take WIlt. They know hes the better player than anyone left. They just dont like him for whatever (irrational) reason. I have been here for 7 yrs and I know that certain people will always hate Wilt just like certain people will always love (insert player). You dont like him because you dont like how he thinks or how he sleeps with women. Thats why you wont vote for him. It has nothing to do with Wilt on the court and I refuse to try to prove the obvious and make the detractor look like a fool or a bigot or an idiot.

You dont like Wilt for the same reason my wife doesnt like women who are blond tall and have a 38DD cup. I get it and to be honest if you did like Wilt I would have to reconsider why I do.

Nobody loves Golaith.......

[Doctor MJ]

What's interesting in Magic vs Bird debate is how easily Johnson gets free pass on his flaws during first half of his career. Conflict with coach, with Nixon, "tragic Johnson" finals... that's awful stuff and shows how far from Bird was Magic in terms of being complete basketball player during ~first half of his career.

I don't think there's any doubt that if results were different, we'd view Magic differently.

Conflict with coach? Magic got Westhead fired, and Riley promoted. Since then, Westhead's done jack, and the never-before coach Riley has become known as one of the greatest coaches in history. Magic would seem to have had a point.

Conflict with Nixon? Nixon was a point guard. Magic wanted to be the floor general. They couldn't both do it. This was selfish, but again, in retrospect, Magic was absolutely right to demand control.

I'll note also that when we talk about the Showtime Lakers offensive dynasty, the truly dominant stretch was from '84-85 to '89-90 where they had the best offense in the league 5 of 6 years, and the single best offensive season in history (in '86-87). This was of course, after Westhead and Nixon were gone, and despite the fact that Kareem was no longer a superstar. When a player takes issue with how things are being done, and the result of him getting his way is a clear improvement, to me this becomes not only not a negative but a distinct positive. If someone knows a better way to do something, and has the power to make it happen, I want them to do what they can to improve the situation.

Re: "Tragic Johnson". It is debatable whether he's getting enough flak for this. I have to admit, seeing a guy who 1) Is known for the arguably the great finals game in NBA history, 2) has great playoff stats, 3) has great playoff success, makes it hard for me to take a few mistakes in a serious that seriously, but I could indeed be wrong.

[lorak]

But on the whole, I find that the deeper I look into basketball history and the more I learn, the more convincing it seems to me that it's not a fluke that the biggest impact guys are generally not the dominant scorers. I don't think that's a coincidence.

Kobe (also very high on last decade APM list), Wade, Shaq, Jordan, Hakeem (when won titles he was a more dominant scorer than defensive anchor)... all are dominant scorers (and I think Dirk also should be included) who won MOST titles in last ~20 years.

Sure, if the only thing someone do is scoring then it's not so valuable, but it's rare (Dantley is the best example). Usually if you are great at scoring you are at least also good in other areas, because you have to had a lot of talent and skills to be dominant scorer in the NBA. Jordan is obvious example - dominant scorer, but also great playmaker and defender (for his position), Shaq - dominant scorer but also overall great offensive player (his passing is really underrated) and so on. Wilt was the same, only times were different (and that's why at the beginning of his career he was shooting to much, he was asked to do so). But Chamberlain definitely proved that he could play at GOAT level and led his team to championship (BTW, Doctor MJ, Wilt was 76ers leading scorer that year and second in FGA+FTA so I don't know how you could said that he was Phily XX scoring option behind some role players).

Also, Stern do you want to check the vote tally? Either some people have only nominated and not voted, or I've missed some.

I think it's Magic and Wilt tied on 10? And Duncan on 2.

But I have 24 nom votes down:
West- 12, KG- 8, Oscar- 2, Mikan- 1 and Lebron- 1

Maybe people changed their vote and I double counted it...

Everything good (assuming Sedale Threatt didn't vote yet), but KG - 7, and rrravenred didn't vote so far, only nominated West so that's why there are 22 votes and 23 nominations.

[GilmoreFan]

Strange, I thought Warspite and I were asked not to post anymore in this thread for now...

[lorak]

What's interesting in Magic vs Bird debate is how easily Johnson gets free pass on his flaws during first half of his career. Conflict with coach, with Nixon, "tragic Johnson" finals... that's awful stuff and shows how far from Bird was Magic in terms of being complete basketball player during ~first half of his career.

I don't think there's any doubt that if results were different, we'd view Magic differently.

Conflict with coach? Magic got Westhead fired, and Riley promoted. Since then, Westhead's done jack, and the never-before coach Riley has become known as one of the greatest coaches in history. Magic would seem to have had a point.

Conflict with Nixon? Nixon was a point guard. Magic wanted to be the floor general. They couldn't both do it. This was selfish, but again, in retrospect, Magic was absolutely right to demand control.

And LeBron was right in changing teams, but the problem is the way he and Magic did these things. Not all Lakers players were happy at the time with Magic actions and that for sure affected LAL as a whole, as a team. That's why I'm saying he wasn't ready (in terms of being complete basketball player) since day 1. Bird was. Maybe it's because of age difference, maybe because of personal experience (Bird's life was much harder) but Bird was more mature player, Magic achieved that level after several years in the NBA, after these tragic finals in 1984. And that's why all that is so important.

[Doctor MJ]

And LeBron was right in changing teams, but the problem is the way he and Magic did these things. Not all Lakers players were happy at the time with Magic actions and that for sure affected LAL as a whole, as a team. That's why I'm saying he wasn't ready (in terms of being complete basketball player) since day 1. Bird was. Maybe it's because of age difference, maybe because of personal experience (Bird's life was much harder) but Bird was more mature player, Magic achieved that level after several years in the NBA, after these tragic finals in 1984. And that's why all that is so important.

I don't see any way to get your coach fired or a teammate traded that doesn't have some negative side-effects, and I don't see how any of that says one way or the other about him being "ready".

But, Bird was better out of the gate, I won't dispute that.

[Doctor MJ]

Kobe (also very high on last decade APM list), Wade, Shaq, Jordan, Hakeem (when won titles he was a more dominant scorer than defensive anchor)... all are dominant scorers (and I think Dirk also should be included) who won MOST titles in last ~20 years.

Sure, if the only thing someone do is scoring then it's not so valuable, but it's rare (Dantley is the best example). Usually if you are great at scoring you are at least also good in other areas, because you have to had a lot of talent and skills to be dominant scorer in the NBA. Jordan is obvious example - dominant scorer, but also great playmaker and defender (for his position), Shaq - dominant scorer but also overall great offensive player (his passing is really underrated) and so on. Wilt was the same, only times were different (and that's why at the beginning of his career he was shooting to much, he was asked to do so). But Chamberlain definitely proved that he could play at GOAT level and led his team to championship (BTW, Doctor MJ, Wilt was 76ers leading scorer that year and second in FGA+FTA so I don't know how you could said that he was Phily XX scoring option behind some role players).

Re: APM. Let's get precise here.

First, he's talking about offense. So talk of winning championships, aside from sample size issues, is bringing defense into play. The fact is that the great offensive dynasties of all time, are all led by point guards.

Now, if we look at the best offensive players by APM, you're quite right that it's not exactly dominated by point guards. It is however dominated by ONE point guard in particular, and on average, point guard do well by the metric on offense (and poor on defense).

Re: paraphrasing "scorers are valuable because they can typically do more than score". I think you've got this backwards. For volume scorers, their scoring is typically the lion share of their impact on offense. Their play making becomes less relevant the more they shoot. For example, Jordan's Bulls emerged as a great offensive team not by surrounding Jordan with better scorers that he made use of, but by surrounding him with non-scoring talent focused on the other things like rebounding.

Dantley wasn't an underachiever because he could do nothing but score. He was an underachiever, like Wilt as a scorer, because his teammates' ability to scorer tended to go south when they played with him. You might argue that this is a reflection on his play making, but there's more to it than that. When an offensive player takes time to work his moves, he's creating a predictable situation and reducing opportunity for backup plans.

Re: Wilt scoring in '67. I said he was the 5th option when the lineup was on the floor, by which I meant, his FGA/minute was lower than the other starters. He led the team in scoring simply because he played so much and shot so efficiently, but the fact remains that if he was less likely to shoot than the other starters, the offense ran best when no one was trying to get Wilt the ball so that he could shoot. This is not a reasonable way to play a player who is truly gifted at getting his shot without compromising the rest of the offense, yet it was the right way to use Wilt.

[shawngoat23]

Vote: Wilt. It's still pretty easy at this point.
Nominate: West. I've been going with him since #2.

[JordansBulls]

Magic 29-3 in series with HCA
Bird 24-7 in series with HCA
Wilt 13-5 in series with HCA

Series with HCA vs 50+ win teams and non-50 win teams.

Code: Select all

 vs 50 win teams/non-50 win teams
Wilt:     4-3 (57%)/   9-2 (82%)
Magic:    9-2 (82%)/   20-1 (95%)
Bird:     10-6 (63%)/  14-1 (93%)


Have you broken those down by SRS, out of interst?

"Chronz" has broken it down before.

[lorak]

Kobe (also very high on last decade APM list), Wade, Shaq, Jordan, Hakeem (when won titles he was a more dominant scorer than defensive anchor)... all are dominant scorers (and I think Dirk also should be included) who won MOST titles in last ~20 years.

Sure, if the only thing someone do is scoring then it's not so valuable, but it's rare (Dantley is the best example). Usually if you are great at scoring you are at least also good in other areas, because you have to had a lot of talent and skills to be dominant scorer in the NBA. Jordan is obvious example - dominant scorer, but also great playmaker and defender (for his position), Shaq - dominant scorer but also overall great offensive player (his passing is really underrated) and so on. Wilt was the same, only times were different (and that's why at the beginning of his career he was shooting to much, he was asked to do so). But Chamberlain definitely proved that he could play at GOAT level and led his team to championship (BTW, Doctor MJ, Wilt was 76ers leading scorer that year and second in FGA+FTA so I don't know how you could said that he was Phily XX scoring option behind some role players).

Re: APM. Let's get precise here.

First, he's talking about offense.

So talk of winning championships, aside from sample size issues, is bringing defense into play. The fact is that the great offensive dynasties of all time, are all led by point guards.

Now, if we look at the best offensive players by APM, you're quite right that it's not exactly dominated by point guards. It is however dominated by ONE point guard in particular, and on average, point guard do well by the metric on offense (and poor on defense).

First, drza said: "the more convincing it seems to me that it's not a fluke that the biggest impact guys are generally not the dominant scorers"
So I don't know, but for me it seems like he was talking about general impact of volume scorers (he also talked about Russell, Walton, KG and Duncan as examples of big impact, because they provided more than scoring, for example defense - so it seems almost 100% sure that drza was talking not only about offense, but about overall impact)

Second, I was talking about Winston's list, so far the biggest APM sample available (2000-2009) and Nash isn't on that list. Kobe, dominant scorer, who according to defensive APM is at best average defensively, is on Winston's list so it's safe to assume that he made the list because of his impact on offense, not defense. The same is with Dirk or partly with LeBron and Wade.

Re: paraphrasing "scorers are valuable because they can typically do more than score". I think you've got this backwards. For volume scorers, their scoring is typically the lion share of their impact on offense.

Volume scorers change the whole structure of opposing teams defenses (and so helps team offense in more ways than just by scoring). Dirk is good modern example. Not many assists, but his presence alone open many things for his teammates.
Effective volume scorer is the best thing team could have in modern basketball. You could built very good defense with relatively untalented players, but you can't built offense the same way.

Re: Wilt scoring in '67. I said he was the 5th option when the lineup was on the floor, by which I meant, his FGA/minute was lower than the other starters. He led the team in scoring simply because he played so much and shot so efficiently, but the fact remains that if he was less likely to shoot than the other starters, the offense ran best when no one was trying to get Wilt the ball so that he could shoot. This is not a reasonable way to play a player who is truly gifted at getting his shot without compromising the rest of the offense, yet it was the right way to use Wilt.

The fact is that the offense ran best when Wilt was central point of that offense. At the same time he was dominant scorer AND dominant playmaker. Very unique and in no way his reduced number of shots should be used as argument against him.

[ThaRegul8r]

Magic's offensive impact...might it be similar to the defensive impact that just won Russell the #2 slot in another career that spanned only 13 years?

“I thought I’d seen it all when it came to basketball—every style, every size and shape player there was,” said Jerry West. “[T]hen I saw Magic Johnson. He was still a freshman at Michigan State when I first saw him play. The Spartans were on television, and I remember that almost immediately something about him struck me as being very odd, almost awkward. I suddenly found myself staring at the screen in amazement. Here was this 6'—9" kid with a big man’s body, well over 200 pounds, playing what was essentially a little man’s game. He was the size of most college centers, but he was playing point guard for his team. He was the floor leader, calling all the plays and moving everybody around the floor like an orchestra leader. He was handling the ball like a six-footer, like it was an extension of his hand. He was absolutely in complete command. And he was making the kind of moves I’d never seen from a player his size. He was dribbling the length of the floor, looking one way and passing another. He was hitting every open man, making all the right decisions. Basically, he was controlling the entire game, touching the ball on every Michigan State possession. He was their unmistakable leader. Before anything could happen, it had to go through Magic, a 6'—9" point guard. I was astounded.”

At 6-9, Magic is the tallest point guard in league history, presenting incredible match-up problems for opposing teams. “[H]e probably had the greatest size advantage playing his position of anyone I’ve ever seen,” said West, who played both with and against Wilt Chamberlain, and had Shaquille O’Neal as general manager and vice president of basketball operations of the Lakers (Los Angeles Times, 27 Sept. 2002). “If Shaq is the Big Aristotle and Duncan is the Big Fundamental, Magic is the Big Mismatch.”

Magic Johnson has the highest career assists-per-game average in NBA history (11.2), his 7.2 rebounds per game ranks fourth behind Tom Gola (7.8), Oscar Robertson (7.5) and Jerry Sloan (7.4 rpg) among guards in NBA history, he averaged 19.5 points per game, had a career field-goal percentage of 52.0 percent (in NBA history only Lewis Lloyd at 52.4 percent and Maurice Cheeks at 52.3 percent ever shot better among guards), shot 84.8 percent from the free-throw line, and had a career true shooting percentage of 61.0%, eighth-highest in NBA history (behind Artis Gilmore [.643], Cedric Maxwell [.629], James Donaldson [.618], Adrian Dantley [.617], Jeff Ruland [.615], Reggie Miller [.614], and Charles Barkley [.612]). He popularized the triple double—double-figures in points, rebounds and assists—compiling 138 of them during his career. In 1981-82 he came the closest of any modern era player of averaging a triple double in a season, with 18.6 points, 9.6 rebounds (12th in the league) and 9.5 assists. Was the all-time leader in assists until John Stockton broke his mark in February of 1995.

Reb% averages by positional starters looks something like this:

PG--5.3
SG--6.6
SF--8.8
PF/Frontcourt Player--14.3
C/Frontcourt Player--15.5

If a player rebounds at a rate about 5-6 higher than his positional averages, you have an "impact rebounder." These players are very rare. you have to assess them in funny ways. Magic Johnson is a terrific example. his career rebound% is 11.1...about 5.8 higher than a "normal" PG. A normal starting PG that plays 2900 minutes will grab about 267 rebounds. In that number of minutes, Magic will grab about 560 rebounds--nearly 300 more boards. Magic Johnson alone is the difference between being on a bad rebounding team (-150 rebound differential) and a great rebounding team (+150 differential).

In his rookie year, in the 1980 NBA Finals against the Philadelphia 76ers, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, regular season league MVP and averaging 31.9 points, 12.1 rebounds, 3.1 assists and 3.87 blocked shots per game and shooting 57.9 percent from the field during the playoffs and 33.4 points, 13.6 rebounds, 4.6 blocked shots and 3.2 assists per game in the Finals, sprained his ankle in the third quarter of Game 5 in Los Angeles and did not make the trip with the team to Philadelphia for Game 6. Johnson filled in at center and scored 42 points, grabbed 15 rebounds, dished out seven assists and had three steals, shooting 14 of 23 from the floor (60.9%) and making all 14 of his free-throw attempts to lead the Lakers to a 123-107 win, and, with it, the NBA championship. He was 20 years, 9 months and 2 days old.

As versatile as Meryl Streep, Magic Johnson can play any role the Lakers ask. Lately, that has included everything short of portraying Woody Allen's estranged wife or wearing a wig and speaking with an Australian accent.

Best known as a point guard who has so transformed the position that a new statistical category called the triple-double was devised, Johnson now has been asked to stretch his talents and his 6-foot-9 body to other positions on the court.

No costume change is needed, only a different approach and attitude.

Tune in to a Laker game at almost any juncture, and Johnson is likely to be playing any one of four positions. It has almost gotten to the point where public-address announcers should identify Johnson as Charlotte Hornet Coach Dick Harter did recently--point pivot.

Johnson, of course, starts and plays most of his 37 minutes a game at his natural point-guard spot. But in these post-Kareem transition days, Johnson will also play as many as 15 or 20 minutes a game at small forward and big forward, the latter mainly on defense. There also have been times, whenever Coach Pat Riley wants a quick lineup or is beset by foul trouble, that Johnson has played center.

"Magic this year is like a politician's promises," teammate Mychal Thompson said. "All over the place."

The difference, of course, is that Johnson often delivers. Although he has always had the ability to be an interchangeable part in the Laker attack--remember his 42-point, 15-rebound effort subbing for Abdul-Jabbar at center in Game 6 of the 1980 NBA Finals?--until now it has not been necessary for him to do anything except orchestrate and create from his point-guard spot.

Abdul-Jabbar's retirement created the need for his expanded activity, and the important addition of backup point guard Larry Drew made it possible.

"My role has really changed," Johnson said. "I'm running all five positions now at one time or the other, and I'm having to do more things than in the past. I love the challenge of doing something I don't do all the time. We all need challenges to keep us going. Life gets stale without them."

Life also can get complicated with them. Johnson has even more responsibility for the Lakers' success now than in previous seasons, if that is possible.

Now, he is the point guard in charge of controlling the flow and tempo of the offense; the small forward required to camp in the low post and provide inside scoring; the off-guard responsible for perimeter scoring; the power forward needed to root himself underneath and rebound, and the center who, as in the fourth quarter of a recent game against New Jersey, trades bumps and elbows with the likes of 7-foot-1 Sam Bowie.

Lacking an outside shot when he entered the league, he developed a three-point shot; after never having taken more than 56 three-point attempts in a season or shooting better than 23.3 percent, he took 188, 276 and 250 three-point attempts from 1988-89 to ’90-91, shooting 31.4 percent, 38.4 percent (18th in the league) and 32 percent. After shooting .810, .760, .760, .800 and .810 from the free-throw line the first five seasons of his career and missing two critical free throws with 35 seconds left in Game 4 of the 1984 NBA Finals against Boston, enabling the game to go into overtime where Boston won 129-125, ultimately winning the series in seven, Magic improved to .843, .871, .848 and .853 the next four seasons, led the league in free-throw percentage in ’88-89 at 91.1 percent and shot .890 (7th in the league) and .906 (5th) afterwards. When Pat Riley made him the focal point of the Lakers’ offense over Kareem in the ’86-87 season, Johnson responded with a career-high 23.9 PPG (10th in the league), leading the Lakers to a league-best 65-17 record, second best in franchise history, winning his first NBA Most Valuable Player award, and then followed with averages of 19.6, 22.5, 22.3 and 19.4 PPG afterwards. “He was always a threat with the ball,” said Pete Newell, “because not only could he score, but he made everyone on his team a potential scorer.”

Magic's combination of playmaking (the best ever) and scoring (20 ppg on 61 TS%, 8th all-time) was the engine of the best offensive machine the league has ever seen. Just take a look at the Lakers offensive rankings with/without Magic.

1979: 7th
(Magic joins the team)
1980: 2nd
1981: 7th (Magic played only 37 games)
1982: 2nd
1983: 2nd
1984: 3rd
1985: 1st
1986: 1st
1987: 1st
1988: 2nd
1989: 1st
(Kareem retires)
1990: 1st
1991: 5th
(Magic retires)
1992: 13th

The most telling of those rankings may be the fact that they were still on top in Kareem's latest years and were #1 the year after Kareem retired.

“If I were selecting a team I would take Magic Johnson first because he makes it so much easier for everyone on the club,” said Larry Bird (Drive, p. 244). “All he wants to do is get the ball to somebody else and let him score,” said Abdul-Jabbar. “If you’re a basketball player, you’ve got to love somebody like that” (Kareem, p. 167). “He is the only player who can take three shots and still dominate a game,” said Julius Erving.

“What might be most remarkable is that he always found a way to win important games,” said Newell. “If his team won by two points, he might score 20 points. If his team won by 35 points, he might score just 10 points, but he always found a way to win.” In 12 seasons before his career came to a premature end after announcing on Nov. 7, 1991 that he had contracted the HIV virus, Johnson led the Lakers to a 712-272 record (.724 winning percentage), 10 Pacific Division titles (nine in a row from 1981-82 to ’89-90), nine NBA Finals appearances (1980, ’82-85, ’87-89, ’91), winning five NBA championships (1980, ’82, ’85, ’87, ’88), beating the Philadelphia 76ers of Dr. J, Maurice Cheeks, Bobby Jones, Andrew Toney, Darryl Dawkins and Caldwell Jones twice, the Boston Celtics of Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, Dennis Johnson and Danny Ainge twice and the Detroit Pistons of Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumars, Bill Laimbeer, Rick Mahorn, Dennis Rodman, Vinnie Johnson, Mark Aguirre, James Edwards and John Salley.

“Of all the players in the history of the game, no one played the game more like Bill Russell than Magic Johnson,” said Bill Walton. “Magic did whatever it took to win the game, scoring only when no one else could get the job done. He did his best when his best was needed and he did the things that few other players were willing to do” (Nothing But Net: Just Give Me the Ball and Get Out of the Way, p. 199).

“Magic has to be the greatest player that ever played the game, He just has to be” (San Jose Mercury News, Feb 10, 1992). “Magic Johnson might have been the greatest player who ever lived. Certainly he was the most unselfish. His 9,921 assists attest to that” (Eugene Register-Guard, Nov 4, 1992). “There is no question Riley did a very good job pulling the Lakers together and manning the helm through four title cruises. But there was the sense then and now that he believes his contributions to those rings to be far greater than reality would dictate. When one has a Magic Johnson, he is best served by setting up the microphone and letting the greatest player in the history of the game sing” (Boston Herald, Jan 24, 1993). “At 35 and soon-to-be 36 in August, the greatest player to ever lace on a pair of sneakers would do just fine as the Lakers’ power forward” (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Jul 12, 1995).

As already mentioned, which I was going to bring up, on the detriment side is the "Tragic Johnson" debacle, Westhead and Nixon affairs, the '81 first round against the Rockets, in which he shot 2-for-14 and airballed a shot that would have given the Lakers the lead with 10 seconds left in the deciding game, and the weakness of the Western Conference.