RealGM Top 100 List #6

colts18 · Post #21 » by **colts18** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:38 am

Here is Shaq's record vs elite playoff competition. I will try to do Hakeem and Duncan later.

From 93-07:
Record vs:
50+ win teams: 16-6
55+ win teams: 11-4
60+ win teams: 4-4

That is very good. I don't think anyone else has 4 wins vs 60 win teams.

An Unbiased Fan · Post #22 » by **An Unbiased Fan** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:43 am

Baller2014 wrote:UBF, I didn't call you on this before, but I'm going to now. "Best players at their position" is an obviously flawed way to look at things. The next ten best players might all have played the same position. It looks to me like you're just using that analysis so you can mention Kobe (especially since you have Kobe all alone at the SG spot, but you bring up Pettit at the PF spot! Pettit is a lot further away from guys like KG and Malone than Kobe is from guys like Drexler or D.Wilkins).

Strange, I didn't hear a peep from you when I had Duncan all alone at PF.....

FYI, I used the same logic last time around. It's much easier for me to parse out players by comparing them to others at the same positions to start with, then I can look at the last 5 and pick a winner.

As for Petitt, he and ALL five PFs I mentioned were Top 20 last time around. I have already brought up Kobe, so why would I need tricks to mention him? I flatout said I'm going Kobe after Magic, so I'm not sure what you're even getting at. If that bothers you, oh well.

90sAllDecade · Post #23 » by **90sAllDecade** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:52 am

colts18 wrote:
90sAllDecade wrote:I'll start with a first point.

Hakeem played Shaq from ages 30-39. He was already thirty when 20 year old Shaq entered the league. Hakeem's dominant athletic years were in the 80's, his defensive prime was ending at around age 32 and offensive prime at about age 33.

Shaq was still outplaying Hakeem head to head when Hakeem was an all-star caliber player

vs. Hakeem 93-99, 14 games:
Expected: 22.4 PPG, 51.6 FG%
Actual: 20.3 PPG, 45.3 FG%

Shaq's numbers:
Expected: 23.7 PPG, 57.8 FG%
Actual: 20.1 PPG, 57.4 FG%

Playoffs:
vs. Hakeem, 8 games:
Expected: 22.3 PPG, 51.6 FG%
Actual: 21.9 PPG, 46.5 FG%

Shaq's numbers:
Expected: 24.3 PPG, 57.8 FG%
Actual: 25.2 PPG, 55.6 FG%

Again, using Hakeem's numbers post prime and when he had a reduced role is misleading imo and uses stats to paint a picture without context. Those playoffs numbers include the 99' series when Olajuwon was 36 years old and Shaq was 26.

Dwight Howard outplayed Shaq who was an all star in four of those years, including 06-07 and 08-09.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... =howardw01

Shaq from 2004-2011:
Expected: 17.5 PPG 8.8 reb 2.0 ast 1.7 blk 2.5 TO 3.5 Fouls
Actual: 15.7 PPG 6.4 reb 1.8 ast 1.6 blk 2.8 TO 4.6 Fouls

To Shaq's credit, he improved on his FG% and Howard stayed around or slightly below his averages. Dwight isn't as good an offensive player as younger Hakeem or Shaq. But you get my point.

In older age Howard outplayed 4x all star Shaq in comparison and it's using stats to paint a picture without context, as we know Dwight wasn't the actual better player, just younger while O'neal was older in those head to heads.

Basketballefan · Post #24 » by **Basketballefan** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:56 am

fpliii wrote:
Basketballefan wrote:Will once again vote Magic Johnson below is my reasoning from before.

Arguably the greatest offensive player of all time, great leader, great winner, made his teammates better than anyone ever imo.

5 time champion, 3 of which he was the undisputed best player, 3 time MVP, 12 time all star, 4 time assist leader, 9 All nba first team selection etc

Great playoff performer beat some all time great teams such as Bird's Celtics and the Bad boy pistons, Avged 20 8 12 over his 13 year playoff career. Wins his first championship and FMVP as a rookie putting up 18 11 9 in the playoffs, with an incredible 42 15 7 game 6 clinching performance as Kareem goes down with injury and he jumps center.

Had Magic not got HIV he would've had a longer career and could've been in discussion for top 2 or even GOAT.

Knocks on magic usually consist of his longevity and his defense. Magic wasn't a great defender but i don't think he was a negative on that end and for his longevity its not great but not horrible, 13 years and he accomplished so much in that span and changed the game.

Which 3?

85, 87, 88

Edit: Note, i mean on his team not neccesarily in the whole league.

HeartBreakKid · Post #25 » by **HeartBreakKid** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 1:08 am

For me this is between O'Neal and Olajuwon still.

I assume Magic will be the other guy who gets the most votes. I see little reason to put Magic over Shaq, they both had about the same amount of prime years, Shaq had better longevity overall, and Shaq peaked MUCH higher.

Shaq was just as a dominant force on offense as Magic was. Yes, show times Lakers team statistics imply that Magic was the goat offensive player, but that team was obviously super stacked and I think a lot of the offensive tactics that team had would not necessarily work in all eras. I think Shaq was probably more impactful relative to his era, and would also be more impactful across multiple eras.

I'd gladly take the dominant 30 PPG low post presence, who could foul out an entire team, while also having a good passing game to run a team oriented offense around him, rather than the passing and playmaking wizardy of Magic Johnson. That's not to take away from how special a playmaker Magic was, as he could control the tempo like no other, a very important ability to have, but the difference in scoring between the two is gigantic. I also peg Magic Johnson a lot because he was not a great floor spacer, which I think is quite important for a guard. As a playoff performer, Magic has more famous games, but Shaq seems like the better Post Season performer, better stats against much better defenses, and the results Shaq had in his peak were better than what Magic had.

So the two offensively are very comparable, defensively who in their right mind would want Magic over Shaq? Shaq is a legit defensive anchor, he has all the benefits of having a 7+ athletic center. Can protect the rim, can run with the boys when he was younger, will grab you an easy 10 boards a game. Magic couldn't really guard point guards at all, which the simple solution is to have him guard wings, but even then it's not like he was a lock down type of guard. The impact here is clearly in Shaq's favor.

So this is now between Shaq and Hakeem as I alluded to before. Hakeem might have been better, but I feel like there is less speculation in the part of taking Shaq. Even during their finals series where Hakeem was smoking the Magic, Shaq still got his. Hakeem and Shaq had very comparable peaks, but no one really talks about Shaq pre 2000 for some reason, where he was still incredible, perhaps 90s Shaq was a better player than 80s Hakeem.

It really comes down to, can Hakeem's all time great defense over ride the gap in offense between the two? As great as a scorer Hakeem was, I think most would agree that Shaq was the better force at that end. To be honest, I can be convinced to go in Hakeem's favor (I rank them back to back), but for now I am going to vote for Shaquille O'Neal.

acrossthecourt · Post #26 » by **acrossthecourt** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:52 am

Can someone else discuss Magic? He's usually ranked higher than 6, and I usually see him over Shaq. Just because we don't have advanced stats for him doesn't mean we should detract his case.

I think Shaq and Magic are close here along with LeBron.

I don't see Olajuwon reaching their level. I fear people are overrating him because of the perception that he can win with a "poor" supporting cast, which is patently untrue (don't rate supporting casts by the flashy star power.)

90sAllDecade · Post #27 » by **90sAllDecade** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 3:02 am

That is a great post and I can understand the sentiment.

We can compare Hakeem vs Shaq for those interested and look at how they compare in the RS.

80's Hakeem vs 90's Shaq: Defense and Usage Regular Season:

Hakeem

Shaq

In thier younger years, Hakeem lead the league in Drtg (bolded) not just once but five consecutive times. Shaq made the top 10 twice at 9th and 8th, but never led the league or came close on defense during these younger years. Hakeem was also much more durable and played more minutes and games, even at this younger age.

Defensive Rebounds
Hakeem

Shaq

Steals
Hakeem

Shaq

None listed.

Blocks

Hakeem

Shaq

I don't value Win Shares, but some do. Win shares are team based stats and Hakeem is naturally at a disadvantage here against others with better team support. They don't properly account for defensive impact and are flawed imo. But some people still look at them.

Hakeem

Shaq

ElGee · Post #28 » by **ElGee** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 3:19 am

Bird-Magic is one of the great basketball debates, but often misrepresented due to fading memories and reductionism. Lately their have been issues raised with regards to Bird's playoff performances, mainly deriving from his shooting percentages. His injuries are a concern. And he has few defenders or people who were aware of the details of that era. Magic, on the other hand, has been inflated over the years, mainly due to “5 rings, 9 Finals,” and his 1980 G6. This post will focus on these issues, primarily the oversight of just how good Larry Bird was in the early 80's relative to Magic Johnson, and just how long it took Magic to ramp up to his prime/peak years; there's little evidence to suggest Magic was as good in the early 80's as his G6 against Philly.

1980

Spoiler:

1981

Spoiler:

The 81 Celtics post another 6 SRS season – something Magic wouldn't be a part of until 1985 – and win the title after an epic ECF with Philly. My notes on G7 from that series:

Bird's Game 7 was an all-timer. Dude had 4 steals and 3 blocks (Kalb says 5 but good luck finding 5 -- score-keeping errors were rife in those days). Speaking of errors, he was most certainly NOT 9-12 in the final game, but 8-16. He hit a key 3 in the second half, which was the first Boston 3-pointer of the playoffs! Bird does indeed make the winning banker with just over a minute left, after making a key defensive play. It's a monster game on both ends.

I think most people know that in the Finals, Bird was a creation machine, absorbing Houston double-teams (per their strategy) and happily setting the table for players like Maxwell.

Magic still isn't on anyone's radar for best player in the game and rightfully so. He misses 46 games and the Lakers are a 2.2 SRS team without him in that span, which can't be emphasized enough; Magic simply was not the star of the early 80's Lakers – Kareem was. Magic did improve them by 7 wins (to 4.8 SRS) when in the lineup before LA lost in a silly 3-game series, but a +2.2 team that adds an MVP-level player should be WAY better than 4.8. I wrote this about Magic in the 81 RPOY:

By all accounts, the Lakers just weren't really The Lakers. There were chemistry issues with Magic coming back -- off the court and on it. Norm Nixon missed a few games to close the season because his grandmother died. He certainly doesn't look like his usual self in G1.

Magic didn't look right either. He misses a layup deep in the post. Posts again and misses a baby sky hook. Throws a horrible pass right to Moses Malone setting up the offense. Grabs a board and starts the break only to turn it over because he didn't see Murphy streaking back. He did hit a jumper at one point. I think the chemistry issues played a part in his play, despite a stat-line that looks fairly normal.

At the end of the 1981 season, I don't think Magic Johnson was playing great basketball. OTOH, at the end of 1981, the Complete Handbook of Basketball Quotes wrote this about Bird:

Complete Handbook of Basketball Quotes wrote:Belongs in a higher league ... Absolutely the best all-around player in the universe .. Simply takes over in the closing minutes of close games ... Has that rare quality that Bill Russell possessed of making all his teammates better players.

1982

Spoiler:

One of the concerns about Bird brought up is his TS%. When you provide opportunities with spacing by sucking defensive attention, and you create open shots for teammates, your TS% can be negative and you can still have a larger positive impact on the game (you can demonstrate this to yourself with some basic math about elevating teammate FGA percentages by getting them open looks versus the difference in one's owns looks.

Consider the difference between Bird's 47% TS in the 1982 PS and his 56% TS in the RS. At first glance it sounds huge. In a vacuum, it is the difference between a 111 Ortg and a 95 Ortg. At 20 attempts per game, it's a 3.2 point per game difference. (Let's exclude the small sample for a moment.) But the game isn't played in a vacuum. First, the postseason defenses were harder. The league average defense in the RS allowed 53.3% TS, but Boston's 82 opponents allowed 52.2% TS. Relative to the defensive environment, we now see a 7.2% TS dropoff, worth 2.9 points per game.

Now those 2.9 points matters, but this doesn't happen in a vacuum. It can be offset quite easily, even for high-volume shooters. For instance, an extra offensive rebound per game and one less turnover per game bring the difference to less than a point per game. More germane to Bird is whether his creation could increase to offset this. To me the answer in 1982 is “I don't know, but I don't see evidence for that” – I think he just missed shots and ran up against two good defenses, the second of which played a crazy brutal series against Boston. I specifically chose this example because I think it's the one, 12-game playoff sample in Bird's career where his shot is legitimately off (unrelated to injury) and his impact slightly dampened as a result. I also consider the sample size and the opponent, however – are we saying those 12 games are representative of Bird's value that year? I don't think so, but they may suggest some inconsistency/high variance/shooting flaw that may not be present in the ensuing years. You still see stuff like this though:

Just watched first half of G2 between Philly and Boston. Bird with a mildly ridiculous first half (Celtics blew the game open): 23 points 10 rebounds 4 assists. 10-11 FG. 3-3 FT. The old 93% TS half.

This is also the year where, with Archibald out of the lineup, the Celtics were better in 9 games, playing at a 58-game win pace. This speaks to Bird's ability to quarterback an offense early in his career, despite playing more off-the-ball and shooting less than he would in the heart of this career. He just demanded an incredible amount of defensive attention and was one of, if not THE, GOAT player off-the-ball (perpetual movement, which I think ties in to offensive rebounding because of the positioning it created).

This is the same year that Cotton Fitzsimmons said this:

Cotton Fitzsimmons wrote:Doc plays hard every minute he's out there. I can't say he's the best, because Larry Bird does the great things, too, but when it comes to being sensational he's in a class by himself. He and Bird are the Batman and Robin of the NBA.

This kind of “best in game” talk is abundant with regards to Bird – I've never seen a single quote from that time with Magic in that class. Johnson wouldn't make an all-nba team until the following season, 1983.

1983

Spoiler:

1984

Spoiler:

1980-1988 perspective

Spoiler:

1989-1992

Spoiler:

RSCD3_ · Post #29 » by **RSCD3_** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 4:11 am

ElGee wrote:
Spoiler:
Bird-Magic is one of the great basketball debates, but often misrepresented due to fading memories and reductionism. Lately their have been issues raised with regards to Bird's playoff performances, mainly deriving from his shooting percentages. His injuries are a concern. And he has few defenders or people who were aware of the details of that era. Magic, on the other hand, has been inflated over the years, mainly due to “5 rings, 9 Finals,” and his 1980 G6. This post will focus on these issues, primarily the oversight of just how good Larry Bird was in the early 80's relative to Magic Johnson, and just how long it took Magic to ramp up to his prime/peak years; there's little evidence to suggest Magic was as good in the early 80's as his G6 against Philly.

1980
[spoiler]The 1980 Celtics made a number of changes from the previous season that are put into context with an old post I made:

1979 to 1980 Celtics Changes:
-Took the grumpy and disgruntled Dave Cowens off the sideline as a PLAYER-COACH and replacing with him Bill Fitch
-Tiny Archibald's health improved and minutes increasing by 1100
-Replaced poor-rep guys like Marvin Barnes and Bob McAdoo with ML Carr or Gerald Henderson on the bench
-Jo Jo White, limping around on his last legs to start 1979, retired
-Went from no semblance of a rotation (3 healthy players all year, 11 players at 800 minutes, multiple starting 5's) to a team that was healthy and congruent all year

White, Billy Knight and even Earl Williams were starters at the beginning of the 79 season when they opened 2-13...They weren't on the 1980 team. They went 21-20 after a disastrous start and then finished 4-17. McAdoo and players like Curtis Rowe started and played big minutes down that stretch...and they weren't on the 1980 team.

So this massive changes from -5 to +7 SRS isn't simply the presence of Bird. There were a lot of changes. As a result, it's hard to say stuff like "Larry Bird as a rookie took a -2.3 offense to +4.2!"

Can't say that. Not close.

What we can work with is that a rookie Bird -- already 23 years old, polished and one of the best players in the world -- was the offensive centerpiece of a +4.2 offense...the 15th-best offense by that metric in league history at that point in time. This was achieved with a re-invented Tiny Archibald at the point, an efficiency inside player (Maxwell) and some decent shooters (Carr, Ford). These are very nice results.

It also might look to some like Dave Cowens was a big name on the team. Well, Cowens missed 16 games.

w/Cowens: +6.9 SRS
w/out Cowens: +9.4 SRS

The Celtics were just fine without Cowens. This is really a team powered by Bird, augmented by Archibald and Maxwell, and filled with nice role players. Those are seriously good results with such a roster.

Archibald – Ford – Maxwell – Superstar – Robey/Cowens with Carr off the bench...were a +7.4 SRS team. Immediately it should be self-evident why Bird was a legit MVP contender (finishing 4th) out of the gate. +4.2 doesn't sound like a huge offensive spread now that we have 35 years of the 3-point era behind us, but in 1980 it was a kick ass offense.

Bird was the cornerstone. He drew a tremendous amount of defensive attention. Was incredibly active off the ball (and a fantastic shooter) and a phenomenal passer. In fact, Rick Barry called him the best passer in the league during one telecast (not Magic). Alex Sachare, longtime AP basketball columnist wrote this at the end of the 80 season:

Alex Sachare
In Boston, the key man in the Celtics' remarkable turnaround has been Larry Bird. His passing game helped the Celtics more than double last year's 29 victories...While his scoring and rebounding certainly helped, the attitude he instilled was the most vital factorin the Celtics' renaissance.

[An MVP vote] for either Erving or Bird would certainly be reasonable. But this vote goes to Kareem...

The Rookie of the Year also has three top candidates -- Bird, Johnson and center Bill Cartwright...Bird should win, on the theory that while the Lakers already were a very good team before Magic arrived on the scene, the Celtics were awful the last two years...

The league's all-star team? Abdul-Jabbar at ceter is easy, and so are Bird and Erving at the forward spots (sorry, Marques Johnson). The guard positions are tougher, but the votes here go to George Gervin, because you can't ignore a three-time scoring champion, and Gus Williams of Seattle, because he had a great all-around season.

Bird was also an excellent team defender in his early years – very active, very physical, and a fantastic defensive rebounder. Think of the positioning Dirk Nowitkzi uses and then add better hands, better leaping/shot blocking and better help on doubles and in passing lanes. Here's a description that sums it up well to me that I wrote for the 83 RPOY project:

In games 3 and 4, Bird makes a number of great team defensive plays. Sneaks around Lanier from the backside for a steal on the post. Rotates over and blocks a layup. Understandable why he was so esteemed as a team defender. (Marques Johnson does bake him 1 v 1, but Bird didn't guard him unless McHale was in the game and even then not always).

In the 1980 series against Philly, Bird did admit he was exhausted after Game 3. Brings new meaning to the rookie wall, 89 games into a rookie season where he had to do massive heavy lifting. He was averaging 23 a game on 54% FG shooting in the playoffs before game 4 but would fall off heavily in the final 2 games of the series.

Meanwhile, Magic entered the league next to prime Kareem and had Nixon and Wilkes alongside him. He shouldered a completely different offensive responsibility. While Bird took 20 FGA/game in the PS, Magic took 12. A bunch of those were the beneficiary of his strong offensive team, where he'd up with more layups because teammates set him up. He wasn't the table setter and he wasn't running Showtime yet. He was like a hybrid – what Brent Musberger once called during a game “inventing a new position.” Here's what I wrote about Magic's rookie year in the 1980 RPOY:

His defense is, well, very good. Led the league in steals, active and disruptive, often spearheading Riley's trap. The defensive rebounding speaks for itself (13.7% TRB as a wing).

But it's Rondo-esque. I've harped on circumstances mattering throughout the project (eg Nash in Dallas not being used right) and for 1982, Magic wasn't in a situation that (presumably) maximized his contributions. He was still fantastic, but he's only running point for 5-10 minutes a game when Nixon is out. In the playoff games I watched, when he runs point, he will drive and score and initiate. Otherwise, more of his offense comes from transition, put-backs or teammates (often Kareem) finding him off cuts and screens. His scoring rate is quite low, even lower than Nash's first season in Phoenix. He will make a couple great passes a game that 99% of people can't make -- outlets for layups or halfcourt passes to cutters for layups, right over an unsuspecting opponents ear.

But I think in terms of that kind of impact, it's night and day from when was "running" the offense versus being a cog in a it with the occasional flash of brilliance. Nixon ran point, pushed the fast-break like a racehorse, Wilkes could score the ball and when things bogged down, they'd just throw it into Kareem in the halfcourt. Hard to see how Magic should be getting a lot of credit for any of that.

To put some numbers into perspective, Bird took 22% of his team's True Shot attempts in the PS, and his next closest player was Maxwell at 14%. OTOH, the Lakers had Kareem at 24% (arguably Kareem's offensive peak), Wilkes at 19%, Nixon at 16% and Magic at 15%. That kind of distribution is going to create more selectively favorable attempts for Magic compared to Bird, all the while taxing and stressing Bird who has to carry that heavy load.

Magic did snag 3 of the 66 ROY votes from Bird. Nonetheless, you have a player who may have been capable of a lot more, but also didn't have to endure the stress and challenge placed on an offensive initiator. He was active defensively, moved off the ball on offense, and played point in short stretches. He was NOT the player you see in G6 of the Finals – this was as sustainable of a performance as Brandon Jennings 55-point game as a rookie. Magic's outside shooting improved massively in 1987, his post game improved, heck his decision-making as a quarterback really took shape with experience (i.e. by the mid 80's), which is not to say he wasn't a GREAT PG in 1980, but that he was not some prime version of Magic Johnson yet (he was 20 that year, after all).

1981
Spoiler:
The 81 Celtics post another 6 SRS season – something Magic wouldn't be a part of until 1985 – and win the title after an epic ECF with Philly. My notes on G7 from that series:

Bird's Game 7 was an all-timer. Dude had 4 steals and 3 blocks (Kalb says 5 but good luck finding 5 -- score-keeping errors were rife in those days). Speaking of errors, he was most certainly NOT 9-12 in the final game, but 8-16. He hit a key 3 in the second half, which was the first Boston 3-pointer of the playoffs! Bird does indeed make the winning banker with just over a minute left, after making a key defensive play. It's a monster game on both ends.

I think most people know that in the Finals, Bird was a creation machine, absorbing Houston double-teams (per their strategy) and happily setting the table for players like Maxwell.

Magic still isn't on anyone's radar for best player in the game and rightfully so. He misses 46 games and the Lakers are a 2.2 SRS team without him in that span, which can't be emphasized enough; Magic simply was not the star of the early 80's Lakers – Kareem was. Magic did improve them by 7 wins (to 4.8 SRS) when in the lineup before LA lost in a silly 3-game series, but a +2.2 team that adds an MVP-level player should be WAY better than 4.8. I wrote this about Magic in the 81 RPOY:

By all accounts, the Lakers just weren't really The Lakers. There were chemistry issues with Magic coming back -- off the court and on it. Norm Nixon missed a few games to close the season because his grandmother died. He certainly doesn't look like his usual self in G1.

Magic didn't look right either. He misses a layup deep in the post. Posts again and misses a baby sky hook. Throws a horrible pass right to Moses Malone setting up the offense. Grabs a board and starts the break only to turn it over because he didn't see Murphy streaking back. He did hit a jumper at one point. I think the chemistry issues played a part in his play, despite a stat-line that looks fairly normal.

At the end of the 1981 season, I don't think Magic Johnson was playing great basketball. OTOH, at the end of 1981, the Complete Handbook of Basketball Quotes wrote this about Bird:

Complete Handbook of Basketball Quotes wrote:Belongs in a higher league ... Absolutely the best all-around player in the universe .. Simply takes over in the closing minutes of close games ... Has that rare quality that Bill Russell possessed of making all his teammates better players.

1982
Spoiler:
One of the concerns about Bird brought up is his TS%. When you provide opportunities with spacing by sucking defensive attention, and you create open shots for teammates, your TS% can be negative and you can still have a larger positive impact on the game (you can demonstrate this to yourself with some basic math about elevating teammate FGA percentages by getting them open looks versus the difference in one's owns looks.

Consider the difference between Bird's 47% TS in the 1982 PS and his 56% TS in the RS. At first glance it sounds huge. In a vacuum, it is the difference between a 111 Ortg and a 95 Ortg. At 20 attempts per game, it's a 3.2 point per game difference. (Let's exclude the small sample for a moment.) But the game isn't played in a vacuum. First, the postseason defenses were harder. The league average defense in the RS allowed 53.3% TS, but Boston's 82 opponents allowed 52.2% TS. Relative to the defensive environment, we now see a 7.2% TS dropoff, worth 2.9 points per game.

Now those 2.9 points matters, but this doesn't happen in a vacuum. It can be offset quite easily, even for high-volume shooters. For instance, an extra offensive rebound per game and one less turnover per game bring the difference to less than a point per game. More germane to Bird is whether his creation could increase to offset this. To me the answer in 1982 is “I don't know, but I don't see evidence for that” – I think he just missed shots and ran up against two good defenses, the second of which played a crazy brutal series against Boston. I specifically chose this example because I think it's the one, 12-game playoff sample in Bird's career where his shot is legitimately off (unrelated to injury) and his impact slightly dampened as a result. I also consider the sample size and the opponent, however – are we saying those 12 games are representative of Bird's value that year? I don't think so, but they may suggest some inconsistency/high variance/shooting flaw that may not be present in the ensuing years. You still see stuff like this though:

Just watched first half of G2 between Philly and Boston. Bird with a mildly ridiculous first half (Celtics blew the game open): 23 points 10 rebounds 4 assists. 10-11 FG. 3-3 FT. The old 93% TS half.

This is also the year where, with Archibald out of the lineup, the Celtics were better in 9 games, playing at a 58-game win pace. This speaks to Bird's ability to quarterback an offense early in his career, despite playing more off-the-ball and shooting less than he would in the heart of this career. He just demanded an incredible amount of defensive attention and was one of, if not THE, GOAT player off-the-ball (perpetual movement, which I think ties in to offensive rebounding because of the positioning it created).

This is the same year that Cotton Fitzsimmons said this:

Cotton Fitzsimmons wrote:Doc plays hard every minute he's out there. I can't say he's the best, because Larry Bird does the great things, too, but when it comes to being sensational he's in a class by himself. He and Bird are the Batman and Robin of the NBA.

This kind of “best in game” talk is abundant with regards to Bird – I've never seen a single quote from that time with Magic in that class. Johnson wouldn't make an all-nba team until the following season, 1983.

1983

Spoiler:
1983 was the first year I really felt Bird starting to play the way we see star offensive players play now – more aggression, more on-ball activity. His shot just wasn't quite as good as it would be from 84 onward (note the bump in FT%). On paper, 83 Bird actually looks better than 84 in many major categories. Only in the dumb luck category, he gets a brutal virus in the Milwaukee series, a team already designed to give Boston fits with its athleticism.

Bird G1: 17-12 in G1 on something like 7-18 (extrapolating from telecast). [Also dislocated his finger in game]
Bird G2: DNP Virus
Bird G3: 21-12-6 6 steals on 10-21
Bird G4: I think he had 19 (from telecast). Didn't count assists or boards but they were plentiful as well.

The broadcasters were singing his praises throughout the game -- made some ridiculous passes and active as usual on the glass. Celts shot 38% in first 3 quarters and were destroyed on glass. Lanier's presence was huge throughout the series, as was Moncrief's ability to get in lane/post and Johnson's wing scoring. Boston struggled in the backcourt, in particular Henderson and Tiny.

Meanwhile, Magic, plays on a 5 SRS Laker team that has Cooper and Worthy. They are smashed by Philly in the Finals, with Magic having a “down” series:

Johnson averaged 6 turnovers and 51% TS in the FInals. His "advanced" playoff numbers are basically the worst of his career. It's the first season he makes all-nba 1st team, and both on film, statistically and reading old articles he doesn't seem to have the same impact he would even as soon as 1984.

At this point, Bird has a huge lead on Magic in my book. Bird could sit out for the next two years before Magic could catch him. But Bird doesn't sit out the next two years, and Magic doesn't suddenly become Bird's equal either, as Bird enters the first of three consecutive MVP seasons...

1984

Spoiler:
In 1984, Magic gets the keys to the car. The Lakers have a 4 SRS, and without Magic for 15 games (controlling for Kareem and Wilkes), play like a 41-win team. Again, this would be an excellent cast to drop a superstar on...and LA's result leaves a lot to be desired. The Lakers offensive rating is +2.5 compared to their opponents because they played weak defenses. Boston, OTOH played above-average defenses and posted a +3.9 offense.

What's more – LA looks BETTER on offense in the games without Johnson! 54.2% eFG% without him (up from 53.4% with) and 57.7% TS% (up from 57.3%). 15 games is not a small sample here either. This does not mean LA was a better offensive team without early-prime Magic Johnson, but it is a huge data point that suggests they were a very strong offensive team outside of Magic.

1980-1988 perspective

Spoiler:
Here are the broad strokes of the Celtics and Lakers over the years (by SRS) with Bird and Magic in the lineup. Boston listed first, LA second:

1979 -4.78 2.95
1980 7.37 5.39
1981 6.05 4.79
1982 6.38 4.37
1983 5.34 5.06
1984 6.42 3.98
1985 6.47 6.86
1986 9.06 6.84
1987 6.88 8.32
1988 7.27 5.98
1989 1.26 6.84 (No Bird)
1990 2.94 6.74
1991 7.39 6.73

-The Celtics played in a vastly superior conference. For young people, think early 2000's West v East kind of difference.
-Then notice that the Celtics are a leg up (and in some cases way up) in SRS until 1987.
-The 86 Celtics were better than the 87 Lakers by SRS and just about every dominant/great team metric we can find. (something I believe as well) -- these, of course, are the peak years in question.

Look at Bird's teams over the years. In 1980 they lose Cowens for 16 games and it makes no difference. (They played 9 SRS ball during the stretch.) They lose their PG, Tiny, in 1982 for 14 games and improve from 58-win pace to 65-win pace. In 85 they played 20 games without Cedric Maxwell, and the team has small dip from 6.3 to 4.2 SRS ball. (McHale starts for him and depletes an already thin bench.) In those games, Bird averages 31.9 pts on 59.1% TS. In 86 McHale misses 17 games and Boston, again, doesn't miss a beat, going from a 64 to 65-win pace. The 88 Celtics did miss McHale for 13 games, dropping from 63-win pace to 51-win pace.

Then in 1991, the team plays without a traditional PG and the offense (controlling for McHale) goes from +1.6 (22g) to +7.3 ORtg (46g) when Bird is in the lineup. That team played at a 39-win pace for 22 games without Bird and at 65-win pace with Bird. And the OREB% goes way down with Bird in...AND the defense gets way better. Again, this is another piece of evidence suggesting Bird's incredible portability – he's played both forward spots (typically PF defensively) on so many good defensive teams. And if you're wondering about peak offense – the 87-88 Celtics were +7.3 Ortg relative to opponents in the 148 games Bird and McHale play.

Meanwhile Magic's Lakers really jump in 1985, a testament to Magic's growth and also to the development of the “new” Showtime cast. They maintain this level through the end of Magic's career, despite age and some roster turnover, including the 1987 peak of 8 SRS.

However, the Lakers don't show the same patterns when players shift in and out of the lineup. (They are also blessed with incredible health/continuity throughout the decade.) I made this post about the Lakers general quality on offense without Magic Johnson:

But how much of that is Magic and how much of that is the team? How much of that is a strategy geared toward offense?

We know the Lakers without Magic were clearly an above average offense team in the early 80's. We know that Cooper had at least 6 double-digit assist games in December 1983 when Magic was out, including 2 games over 16 assists. If the Lakers played at a constant pace, the ORtg in those games was ~ 110 (almost no change). With some quick pace estimations, it looks like they actually played slower, which means an improvement in offense in those 15g.

In 86 Magic misses 9 relevant games and we have the pace numbers: +6.1 ORtg in the lineup and...+5.0 with Magic out of the lineup. Cooper has 15 and 11 assists to start, then 13, 13, 3, 11, 12, 13, 11. Cooper's a good player, but unless you think he was some sort of hidden QB-genius PG who was totally masked/misused his entire career, this is suggesting strong things about the Laker team/strategy, is it not?

Even in 1988, with the "prime" Magic -- outside shot, post game, etc. -- the Lakers ORtg was -1.1 in the 10 games he missed. Cooper himself was injured as well (!) and did not start in place of Magic. Instead, the Lakers started

Kareem
Rambis/Green
Worthy
Scott
Milt Wagner/Wes Matthews

They started Milt Wagner (Dajuan's dad) or Wes Matthews (Wes' dad). Milt Wagner could barely make the league. Wes Matthews played for 6 different teams, starting ~half his games in 85-86 on middling clubs, and would play one more NBA game after the 1988 season. In short, these were terrible backups. All told, during this stretch the averages were

Scott: 24.4 ppg (+3.1) 4.8 rpg 5.5 apg (+1.6) 5.3 FTA (+1.6) 56.4% TS (-3.0%)
Worthy: 21.3 ppg (+1.8) 4.7 rpg 4.8 apg (+1.1) 5.9 FTA (+2.1) 59.2% TS (+2.5%)

So we have yet another (small) piece of evidence that the Lakers were quite excellent on offense or geared toward offense (even Matthews had some big assist games while starting).

Meanwhile, what if we look at the Boston offenses when Bird was healthy? We see the following:

Bos POS offenses

1984 Bos PS +6.4 (3.1 RS)
1985 Bos PS +3.9/+6.3* (4.9 RS) *First 12g, pre-Bird bar fight
1986 Bos PS +8.2 4.6 RS)
1987 Bos PS +8.5 (5.2 RS)
1988 Bos PS +8.5 pre-Detroit series where Bird had bone spurs (7.3 RS)

And this post I wrote on the Celtics offenses sums it up well:

In Bird's case we have 5 years with 101 PS games, and the PS results are consistently excellent. We could post the "healthy Bird PS results" as

84 +6.4
85 +6.3 (pre-Bar fight)
86 +8.2
87 +8.5
88 +8.5 (pre-bone spurs)

The Celtics competition at this time was fierce: The Bucks, Hawks, Pistons and 76ers were all viable challengers. Grueling series wear teams down. Grueling series are tiring. Grueling series lead to nagging injuries and less rest while your opponent relaxes on the beach. Facing better teams changes your own offensive strategy if you have to focus more on defense/matchups. [Competition listed below]

84-88 Celtics EC Opp by SRS:
1984 -2.3, 4.0, 3.8
1985 -2.3, 2.7, 4.2
1986 -3.1, 2.6, 8.7
1987 1.3, 4.1, 3.5
1988 0.1, 4.0, 5.5 (L)

Avg. SRS = 2.5. Teams over 3.0 = 8

Compare to LA:
84-88 Lakers WC Opp by SRS
1984 -1.6, 0.2, 0.7
1985 -2.3, 2.8, 2.1
1986 -2.1, 0.7, 2.1 (L)
1987 -1.4, -2.5, 0.1
1988 -5.0, 3.0, 3.6

Avg. SRS = 0.0. Teams over 3.0 = 1

For Bird we have 101 PS games from 84-88. He breaks his hand in 85 early Philly series and the end of the PS is in the tank. His bone spurs begin against Detroit in 88 and he goes in the tank. Both these events coincide with the Celtics offense going in the tank. For all of the other data (some 85 games) over 5 years, we have +6 to +8 PS offenses. In his peak year, 1986, the numbers are outrageous until they travel to Houston -- this is the same year McHale missed a bunch of games and nothing changed.

Bird's individual stats for the 15 "injured" games I outlined:
85/88 Injuries: 21.3 ppg 49% TS 5.5 apg 2.5 TOV
84-88 Health: 27.2 ppg 59% TS 6.7 apg 2.2 TOV

And their Correlation to the team”
-The first 11 games of the 85 PS they were +7.2. The last 10 they were +0.6.
-The first 11 games of the 88 PS they were +8.4. The last 6 v Det they were -4.3.

[Only 4.2 points per game can be directly explained by Bird's drop in shooting. The rest is the team around him (or implicitly, how a healthy Bird impacts the team around him. Notice the assists go down and the TOV goes up as well).]

Of course, Magic was a GOAT-level offensive player. (He and Bird are my offensive GOATs, with little separation between them. Even if we see good evidence that the Lakers around him were an excellent offensive team/slanted toward offense, look at what happens when Magic takes over in 1984:

1980 +6.2
1981 -2.8
1982 +7.0
1983 +3.9
1984 +7.5
1985 +9.8
1986 +6.7
1987 +10.5
1988 +7.8
1989 +9.1
1990 +7.7
1991 +4.5

Nonetheless, by 1988, Bird still has a big lead on Magic in my rankings.

1989-1992

Spoiler:
Bird basically couldn't play in the 92 PS and he missed 1989. The leaves 90 and 91 as his only 2 years after this period. Do not undersell these years if you are looking at career value. He average 24-10-8 in 90 and was in the 20-10-7 range in 92. Boston was infinitely better with him on the court, largely a testament to his passing and shooting abilities.

Magic, OTOH, is an MVP-level player from 89-91 before. He was not necessarily of the same caliber as he was at in his peak season, 1987, especially in 1988 (a bit of down year). But he spends 1989-1991 trying to make up considerable ground on Bird, and IMO (depending on how you handle injuries) falls just short. Nonetheless, depending on how you handle injuries, these careers are very close.

So ElGee are you are saying that Magic's role in the half-court offense changed from a post up player who played more off the ball into a ball dominant player

but what im wondering is 2 thing

1. how did Magic Johnson and the lakers employ the pick and roll as his role change

2. Also how much of magic's facilitation was from the perimeter compared to from the post from 87 and on

3. How reliable was late 80's magic post scoring

colts18 · Post #30 » by **colts18** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 4:25 am

ElGee wrote:.

Few questions:
1. Why don't you punish Bird at all for the injuries especially the self inflicted ones? He might be great when he is on the court healthy, but he isn't helping your team when injured.

2. piggybacking on that question, explain some of these championship odds you have:

85 Bird: 0.28
01 Shaq: 0.26

Your numbers are based on end of season form, so how can you rate 85 Bird ahead of 01 Shaq in that metric when Bird's form in the playoffs was clearly on the decline. Its also curious why you have 02 Shaq ahead of 01 Shaq but thats another topic.

88 Bird: 0.24
02 Shaq: 0.27
98 Shaq: 0.18

Why is 88 Bird ahead/on par with those seasons based on this metric? I know you are high on 88 Bird's offense, but how do you rate his offense against the Pistons (another injury)? He averaged 19.8 PPG on 36 eFG%, 102 O rating (against a 105 defense). The Celtics offense was -4 in that series.

3. The 88 Pistons were a good defense but they had a 105.3 D rating. What are your thoughts on the defenses of Bird's era vs Shaq? During Bird's career (80-92), just 5 teams had a D rating under 100. Bird has 1 career playoff series against a sub 100 D rating (81 76ers). Shaq has 13 of them. This list is the strongest opposing playoff defenses for modern stars in the playoffs

PS Prime Avg. Opp Drtg ▾
Shaquille O’Neal 101.9
Kobe Bryant 102.6
Kevin Garnett 103.5
Dwyane Wade 103.7
Tim Duncan 103.7
Karl Malone 103.9
Steve Nash 103.9
Dirk Nowitzki 103.9
LeBron James 104.4
Michael Jordan 105
Larry Bird 105.5
Hakeem Olajuwon 105.8
Charles Barkley 105.8
David Robinson 106.5
Magic Johnson 106.7

How much do we have take away from Bird/Magic because of that?

4. Why are you completely down on 06 Shaq? Your numbers have him at a 0.03 championship odds while rookie LeBron is at 0.02. Your numbers are basically saying that those two would give you equal shot of winning a title which is absurd. When Shaq played the Heat were a 5 SRS team. When he was out they were 10-13 with a negative SRS. RAPM has him as a top 5 per possession player this year. We saw him also have an impact for a title team. How could 06 Shaq be considered a really low impact player?

therealbig3 · Post #31 » by **therealbig3** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 5:07 am

That was a great Magic vs Bird post, and it definitely answered a lot of my questions...but the injuries keep making me reconsider Bird. He DOES get the flu in 1983. He DOES break his hand in a bar fight in 1985. He DOES have bone spurs in 1988. Is it fair to ignore these things, especially when meaningless RS games that Shaq missed are being held against him?

EDIT: Just to clarify, you're clearly not ignoring those injuries, and you're not the one that was holding missed RS games against Shaq, so my apologies, I shouldn't have addressed that to you...I feel that maybe you're being too hard on Magic, however. I feel that his longevity advantage is pretty legitimate, especially with Bird's injuries thrown in. He just happened to hit his prime later than Bird, so the perception is that Bird was the better player throughout their careers until Bird got hurt. But when both were healthy in 1987, Magic won the MVP over him and was at minimum, considered a comparable player at the time. He sustained that level, more or less, from 87-91, without significant injuries. That's a 5-year "super-prime" stretch...similar to Bird from 84-88, except Bird DOES have significant injuries. And I think you can find seasons of similar value for each of their remaining years. Actually, I think I would take 85 and 86 Magic over any remaining year for Bird.

ElGee · Post #32 » by **ElGee** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 5:15 am

RSCD3_ wrote:So ElGee are you are saying that Magic's role in the half-court offense changed from a post up player who played more off the ball into a ball dominant player

but what im wondering is 2 thing

1. how did Magic Johnson and the lakers employ the pick and roll as his role change

2. Also how much of magic's facilitation was from the perimeter compared to from the post from 87 and on

3. How reliable was late 80's magic post scoring

Magic started as more of a slasher off the ball. Well, that's still not quite right because he was such a great passer and he could man the point when needed. But he wasn't a polished shooter and no, I don't think he had the same effectiveness (nor use) of his post game early. He was allowed to be ball-dominant when Nixon left. And I think in 87, what I've always seen is a massive improvement in his outside shot, which allowed him to just become a PnR machine -- his half court offense in 87 was amazing.

I'm sure others here have done better analysis of Magic's post scoring itself, but late 80's/early 90's Magic loved to back smaller guards down.

colts18 wrote:
ElGee wrote:.

Few questions:
1. Why don't you punish Bird at all for the injuries especially the self inflicted ones? He might be great when he is on the court healthy, but he isn't helping your team when injured.

I punish Bird pretty heavily for 88. He gets 0 credit in 89 or 92 and I strongly consider his health in 90 and 91. 83 is a flu in the early parts of the PS -- it's a footnote in most championship contexts. Really, unless you rip Kobe pre-knee drain vs. OKC and a bunch of other similar early-round injuries, Bird stumbling for 2 games in the second round should have almost no impact on title odds. That leaves 85, the bar fight. You could argue that I need to shave a bit more off Bird for that, but it happens deep in the PS and it's also one of the weirder injury situations in league history. If you think he goes from a +7 to a +3 player, well...I'd have to calculate what that actually does with a round left -- off the top of my head I guess that would dent title odds by a few percentage points.

For sure though, everyone should be balancing these injuries for Bird depending on how they see injuries, but at least have the proper context. 88 and 85 are the big ones (and of course, he self-inflicted his back that cost him 89, but I'm pretty sure everyone gives him a 0 for that season).

2. piggybacking on that question, explain some of these championship odds you have:

85 Bird: 0.28
01 Shaq: 0.26/quote]

Not sure where you got those numbers but they don't reflect my current assessments. I have 01 Shaq > 85 Bird. I also have 01 Shaq > 02 Shaq.

88 Bird: 0.24
02 Shaq: 0.27
98 Shaq: 0.18

Why is 88 Bird ahead/on par with those seasons based on this metric? I know you are high on 88 Bird's offense, but how do you rate his offense against the Pistons (another injury)? He averaged 19.8 PPG on 36 eFG%, 102 O rating (against a 105 defense). The Celtics offense was -4 in that series.

Again, you are citing something old perhaps. I have 02 Shaq at 33%, 98 Shaq at 26% and 88 Bird heavily penalized for his shin splits down to 20% (off a GOAT-level offensive season).

3. The 88 Pistons were a good defense but they had a 105.3 D rating. What are your thoughts on the defenses of Bird's era vs Shaq? During Bird's career (80-92), just 5 teams had a D rating under 100. Bird has 1 career playoff series against a sub 100 D rating (81 76ers). Shaq has 13 of them. This list is the strongest opposing playoff defenses for modern stars in the playoffs

PS Prime Avg. Opp Drtg ▾
Shaquille O’Neal 101.9
Kobe Bryant 102.6
Kevin Garnett 103.5
Dwyane Wade 103.7
Tim Duncan 103.7
Karl Malone 103.9
Steve Nash 103.9
Dirk Nowitzki 103.9
LeBron James 104.4
Michael Jordan 105
Larry Bird 105.5
Hakeem Olajuwon 105.8
Charles Barkley 105.8
David Robinson 106.5
Magic Johnson 106.7

How much do we have take away from Bird/Magic because of that?

I know the list because I made it.

You don't have to take anything away without context. I think the first thing it does, since it's a team stat, is put the team accomplishment into context. Second, if you are basing analysis on the classic box stats (pts and efficiency) then you should dig deeper and curve beyond just the defensive environments. How good was Shaq's post defense that he faced vs. how much of it was rules that allowed perimeter players to be manhandled? (Or even worse, poor and deliberate isolation offense from bad schemes/expansion?) I do think that, in general, people should understand the differences in rules and defensive schemes from the 80's to the mid 90's to the isolation years to the 05-present years.

4. Why are you completely down on 06 Shaq? Your numbers have him at a 0.03 championship odds while rookie LeBron is at 0.02. Your numbers are basically saying that those two would give you equal shot of winning a title which is absurd. When Shaq played the Heat were a 5 SRS team. When he was out they were 10-13 with a negative SRS. RAPM has him as a top 5 per possession player this year. We saw him also have an impact for a title team. How could 06 Shaq be considered a really low impact player?

Again, I have 06 Shaq at 15%.

colts18 · Post #33 » by **colts18** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 5:25 am

ElGee wrote:Not sure where you got those numbers but they don't reflect my current assessments. I have 01 Shaq > 85 Bird. I also have 01 Shaq > 02 Shaq.

I got the numbers from your blog:

http://elgee35.tumblr.com/page/3

Warspite · Post #34 » by **Warspite** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 5:36 am

colts18 wrote:Here is Shaq's record vs elite playoff competition. I will try to do Hakeem and Duncan later.

From 93-07:
Record vs:
50+ win teams: 16-6
55+ win teams: 11-4
60+ win teams: 4-4

That is very good. I don't think anyone else has 4 wins vs 60 win teams.

Everything you post is playoffs. Show me something in the regular season for your guy. Anyone can play great for a dozen games. You dont see pulling out Jerry Wests playoff stats (which are wicked) and claiming he is better than players who beat him out for the MVP every yr.

Shaqs inability/durability is his weakness. He has to have a HoF all NBA wing player to compete because he takes half the season getting into shape. Shaq has no division titles in his career. Im very unimpressed and always thought less of Shaq for being a playoff stud because he is a part time regular season player. The inability or unwillingness to run the marathon that is the regular season like every other player just rubs me like the kid that jumps in line.

ronnymac2 · Post #35 » by **ronnymac2** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 5:43 am

ElGee wrote:Here's what I wrote about Magic's rookie year in the 1980 RPOY:

His defense is, well, very good. Led the league in steals, active and disruptive, often spearheading Riley's trap. The defensive rebounding speaks for itself (13.7% TRB as a wing).

But it's Rondo-esque. I've harped on circumstances mattering throughout the project (eg Nash in Dallas not being used right) and for 1982, Magic wasn't in a situation that (presumably) maximized his contributions. He was still fantastic, but he's only running point for 5-10 minutes a game when Nixon is out. In the playoff games I watched, when he runs point, he will drive and score and initiate. Otherwise, more of his offense comes from transition, put-backs or teammates (often Kareem) finding him off cuts and screens. His scoring rate is quite low, even lower than Nash's first season in Phoenix. He will make a couple great passes a game that 99% of people can't make -- outlets for layups or halfcourt passes to cutters for layups, right over an unsuspecting opponents ear.

But I think in terms of that kind of impact, it's night and day from when was "running" the offense versus being a cog in a it with the occasional flash of brilliance. Nixon ran point, pushed the fast-break like a racehorse, Wilkes could score the ball and when things bogged down, they'd just throw it into Kareem in the halfcourt. Hard to see how Magic should be getting a lot of credit for any of that.

This is just false.

You said this in the 1982 RPOY thread.

Great post about Magic and Larry. I remember going through the RPOY project and being surprised at how much responsibility was thrust upon young Bird early, while Magic did indeed have more of a cushion to play a supporting role. It was one of the best things I got out of that project.

Just to talk about Magic though...his early days were perhaps the greatest example of how versatile the man was. I think simplifying it as Rondo-esque does do it an injustice, keeping in mind that you said he perhaps wasn't allowed to maximize the contributions he could give. Maybe this wasn't a bad thing.

This is the GOAT offensive rebounding wing player. This is Magic playing an incredibly important role as a defender, trapping the **** out of teams at 6'9", generating a ton of turnovers, and hitting the defensive glass. 1982, he was 11th in the league in rebounding. He led the team in rebounding during the REG SEA and playoffs (11 per game in the playoffs). 7-10 assists per game every year as a guy playing on-ball, off-ball or wherever else LA needed him.

To me, it can be argued that whatever advantages Bird gets as a result of us getting to see him in more of focal point role (and being incredibly successful at it!), are offset by the non-focal point role we got to see Magic in (nod to Bird for his defense, rebounding, and other non-focal point work). Magic may have been the GOAT non focal-point player ever in these seasons.

We get essentially 4 different Magic Johnsons:

1. We get swiss army knife Magic, the triple-double machine with his best defense.
2. Then when Nixon leaves, we get Super PG Magic.
3. Then he gets the keys and we see 24 point, 12 assist, super post game PEAK Magic.
4. Finally we get unstoppable efficiency monster Magic with a 3-point shot and a perfect post game.

rico381 · Post #36 » by **rico381** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:22 am

Warspite wrote:
colts18 wrote:Here is Shaq's record vs elite playoff competition. I will try to do Hakeem and Duncan later.

From 93-07:
Record vs:
50+ win teams: 16-6
55+ win teams: 11-4
60+ win teams: 4-4

That is very good. I don't think anyone else has 4 wins vs 60 win teams.

Everything you post is playoffs. Show me something in the regular season for your guy. Anyone can play great for a dozen games. You dont see pulling out Jerry Wests playoff stats (which are wicked) and claiming he is better than players who beat him out for the MVP every yr.

Shaqs inability/durability is his weakness. He has to have a HoF all NBA wing player to compete because he takes half the season getting into shape. Shaq has no division titles in his career. Im very unimpressed and always thought less of Shaq for being a playoff stud because he is a part time regular season player. The inability or unwillingness to run the marathon that is the regular season like every other player just rubs me like the kid that jumps in line.

I'm not sure if you misspoke with the bolded, but this is untrue. Shaq's teams won their division title in 95 and 96 (ORL), 2000, 2001, and 2004 (LAL), 2005, 2006, and 2007 (MIA), and if we're being really generous, we can count 2010 and 2011 too (CLE, BOS).

Warspite · Post #37 » by **Warspite** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:25 am

rico381 wrote:
Warspite wrote:
colts18 wrote:Here is Shaq's record vs elite playoff competition. I will try to do Hakeem and Duncan later.

From 93-07:
Record vs:
50+ win teams: 16-6
55+ win teams: 11-4
60+ win teams: 4-4

That is very good. I don't think anyone else has 4 wins vs 60 win teams.

Everything you post is playoffs. Show me something in the regular season for your guy. Anyone can play great for a dozen games. You dont see pulling out Jerry Wests playoff stats (which are wicked) and claiming he is better than players who beat him out for the MVP every yr.

Shaqs inability/durability is his weakness. He has to have a HoF all NBA wing player to compete because he takes half the season getting into shape. Shaq has no division titles in his career. Im very unimpressed and always thought less of Shaq for being a playoff stud because he is a part time regular season player. The inability or unwillingness to run the marathon that is the regular season like every other player just rubs me like the kid that jumps in line.

I'm not sure if you misspoke with the bolded, but this is untrue. Shaq's teams won their division title in 95 and 96 (ORL), 2000, 2001, and 2004 (LAL), 2005, 20006, and 2007 (MIA), and if we're being really generous, we can count 2010 and 2011 too (CLE, BOS).

I stand corrected. I forgot about him carrying that Cavs and Celtics team to titles as well as his Magic seasons.

rico381 · Post #38 » by **rico381** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:31 am

Warspite wrote:
Spoiler:
rico381 wrote:
Warspite wrote:

Everything you post is playoffs. Show me something in the regular season for your guy. Anyone can play great for a dozen games. You dont see pulling out Jerry Wests playoff stats (which are wicked) and claiming he is better than players who beat him out for the MVP every yr.

Shaqs inability/durability is his weakness. He has to have a HoF all NBA wing player to compete because he takes half the season getting into shape. Shaq has no division titles in his career. Im very unimpressed and always thought less of Shaq for being a playoff stud because he is a part time regular season player. The inability or unwillingness to run the marathon that is the regular season like every other player just rubs me like the kid that jumps in line.

I'm not sure if you misspoke with the bolded, but this is untrue. Shaq's teams won their division title in 95 and 96 (ORL), 2000, 2001, and 2004 (LAL), 2005, 20006, and 2007 (MIA), and if we're being really generous, we can count 2010 and 2011 too (CLE, BOS).

I stand corrected. I forgot about him carrying that Cavs and Celtics team to titles as well as his Magic seasons.

If you're going to say something never happened, then someone else points out that it happened 10 times, you don't get off the hook by saying the last two barely count. Just research your posts a bit, and don't say things that are blatantly false. He carried the 2000 Lakers to a title, and even to a division title if that's what really floats your boat. I'm not even a Shaq guy (been voting for LeBron), but just make the case honestly.

andrewww · Post #39 » by **andrewww** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:35 am

From my perspective, this slot comes down to Magic vs Hakeem vs Shaq.
Honourable mention to LeBron vs Bird vs Kobe as I feel this trio is either lacking in complete body of work (LeBron), longevity (Bird), or peak dominance (Kobe).

Magic
The more I've evaluated Magic's career arc, the more impressive it is when you can make a legit case for him as the GOAT offensive player in terms of versatility from a skillset point of view, and have that directly translate into some all time great team offenses. Very rarely did a team with Magic as top dog really lose a series they should have won (injuries not withstanding). He became a better post player, more influential floor general, post scorer, and jump shooter as his career progressed. Even though he was not a game changer defensively, his impact on the offensive side of the ball almost always ensured his team as a championship level contender.

Hakeem
The closest comparison is definitely Duncan, and while Hakeem peaked higher on BOTH sides of the ball, and was the better athlete as well, the real question is whether or not his play translated into maximizing the talent level of the players around him, and subsequently his team success.

Shaq
A physical force that was unmatched since in my lifetime. Forcing teams to game plan around his dominance and soft touch around the hoop, but honestly speaking there were a number of times in close games during those championship years where a HOF wing player in either Kobe/Wade really covered for his difficiencies regarding health and FTs. Having said that, he was so impactful as a player that his presence alone would almost definitely ensure a bonafide contender for his team in any year during his prime (93-03). Shaq was also never more than a slightly above average defender for a center as he was a notoriously average to below average pick and roll defender. He had an incredible peak on offensive volume and efficency, and was a great passer, but outside of that specialized role on offense his defense was honestly nothnig to write about which I don't think gets spoken of enough. His efficiency and raw numbers make it difficult to see past some of his flaws which were quite glaring imo.

My vote is for Magic Johnson

Baller2014 · Post #40 » by **Baller2014** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:43 am

An Unbiased Fan wrote:Strange, I didn't hear a peep from you when I had Duncan all alone at PF.....

FYI, I used the same logic last time around. It's much easier for me to parse out players by comparing them to others at the same positions to start with, then I can look at the last 5 and pick a winner.

As for Petitt, he and ALL five PFs I mentioned were Top 20 last time around. I have already brought up Kobe, so why would I need tricks to mention him? I flatout said I'm going Kobe after Magic, so I'm not sure what you're even getting at. If that bothers you, oh well.

I don't get why you can't just tell us who the next 3-4 best players are in your mind. This way it's being left very vague, as though your order can be shifted 180 degrees as circumstances change. It shouldn't matter who the "best shooting guard" or "best power forward" left is, just who the "best player" remaining is. I mean, nobody is going to question your right to rank them how you like, and you've already admitted you're voting for Kobe next (when most people here aren't even going to consider him until spot #11), so why can't you just tell us who the next 3-4 best players are in your mind? I'm happy to tell you my top 10 list as I currently see things.