[Project:Primes of the top 10 ever] List the top 12 seasons between Bill Russell and Magic Johnson

[Max123]

Found a website that uses RAPM and the box score on players who play from the 50-70s. Not sure how he calculates it though. Thought it might be interesting to anyone who wants more data on older players.

https://shutupandjam.net/nba-ncaa-stats/1962-estimated-impact/

This is very interesting, wonder if one could contact the creator of the formula and ask for more specific details. Russell shows up as pretty consistently the most impactful player in his era there with Wilt taking a few seasons in the late 60s but according to that his impact doesn’t come close to Magic’s in the 80s.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Dutchball97]

Found a website that uses RAPM and the box score on players who play from the 50-70s. Not sure how he calculates it though. Thought it might be interesting to anyone who wants more data on older players.

https://shutupandjam.net/nba-ncaa-stats/1962-estimated-impact/

This is very interesting, wonder if one could contact the creator of the formula and ask for more specific details. Russell shows up as pretty consistently the most impactful player in his era there with Wilt taking a few seasons in the late 60s but according to that his impact doesn’t come close to Magic’s in the 80s.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Just looked into it and James Brocato is the leading basketball analyst for the Dallas Mavs. Ever since he got hired about 7 years ago he stopped publically posting his stats, which is a shame as these look incredibly interesting. The most questionable of these years to me is Magic topping the list in 83 so I do wonder if something about his formula kind of overrates Magic. West on the other hand being nowhere near the top in 68 and 69 is the biggest headscratcher to me in terms of underrating.

It does make me wonder just how many amazing statistics are locked away from the public because of these guys being employed by NBA teams who of course don't want this knowledge to be freely available to all teams.

[Odinn21]

I had some time stamped videos to talk about but I decided they were an overkill since the differences were stylistic rather than being directly comparable.

I'd like to see them anyway. Especially the examples of 1960 concerns.

An example of Russell's later good movements.
Russell gets a good switch, tries to get the ball, can't, then directly starts moving to the other side of the court. The pass he got wasn't a good pass but he still creates a decent shot opportunity to Sam Jones. In 1960, Russell was getting too committed to getting the ball down low. He would stick with the position he got the switch like he was Olajuwon or Duncan who were clearly superior iso scorers.
9:55 in the same video, he gets a rebound but still gets challenged, he tips the ball towards up. In similar situations, Russell was strongly knocking the ball out of bounds in his earliest seasons because the main idea of his game was not getting control of the ball but denying his opponents from an immediate chance. I've seen several times Russell tipped the ball right or left instead of up just to do that. That's one of the things he improved over time.

This was the only one saved as a bookmark, I don't have the other initial time stamped videos. Though I must say since YouTube doesn't have much early '60s footage, I was going with comparing my notes from before and available footage. The examples of 1960 concerns would've been based on 1965 and onwards footage and comparing what he did right at the time to what he didn't in '57-'61 time frame.

---

Found a website that uses RAPM and the box score on players who play from the 50-70s. Not sure how he calculates it though. Thought it might be interesting to anyone who wants more data on older players.

https://shutupandjam.net/nba-ncaa-stats/1962-estimated-impact/

Looks like a great find! Thanks a lot.

---

...

It's good to see you with us. I really want to see your opinions, hopefully real life will let us go through with this project with good participation rates. Cheers.

[homecourtloss]

Great matchup of primes. Russell’s offense being more impactful than Magic’s defense carries the day for Russell, but it’s still close. Magic with slightly better defense...would be incredible to think about.

1. 1965 Russell
2. 1962 Russell
3. 1964 Russell
4. 1987 Magic
5. 1963 Russell
6. 1990 Magic
7. 1988 Magic
8. 1966 Russell
9. 1989 Magic
10. 1986 Magic
11. 1961 Russell
12. 1960 Russell

[homecourtloss]

Found a website that uses RAPM and the box score on players who play from the 50-70s. Not sure how he calculates it though. Thought it might be interesting to anyone who wants more data on older players.

https://shutupandjam.net/nba-ncaa-stats/1962-estimated-impact/

This is very interesting, wonder if one could contact the creator of the formula and ask for more specific details. Russell shows up as pretty consistently the most impactful player in his era there with Wilt taking a few seasons in the late 60s but according to that his impact doesn’t come close to Magic’s in the 80s.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Just looked into it and James Brocato is the leading basketball analyst for the Dallas Mavs. Ever since he got hired about 7 years ago he stopped publically posting his stats, which is a shame as these look incredibly interesting. The most questionable of these years to me is Magic topping the list in 83 so I do wonder if something about his formula kind of overrates Magic. West on the other hand being nowhere near the top in 68 and 69 is the biggest headscratcher to me in terms of underrating.

It does make me wonder just how many amazing statistics are locked away from the public because of these guys being employed by NBA teams who of course don't want this knowledge to be freely available to all teams.

It’s interesting looking at this data and comparing with WOWYR numbers and ON-OFF data we have for the Sixers. There is quite a bit of consistency throughout, which is encouraging, but also some numbers that seem a bit off. Very interesting nonetheless.

[Odinn21]

Roughly 22 hours and 30 minutes left on the clock.

---

Please have rankings numbers (1., 2., etc) in your votes. Without those numbers, it's kind of hard to track.

---

I'm kind of curious why 1988 Magic is so low on many lists (and even missing on some) while 1987, 1989, 1990 and even 1991 are a lot more popular.
His counting stats were down and the Lakers did not win the title in the most convincing way but he was still massive and aside from his shooting, I don't think he improved in any other category. Actually he was gradually getting worse on D, so I'm kind baffled by Magic's 1988 season being so low for many.

---

For tracking;
Results on Google Sheets

[eminence]

I always meant to ask ShupandJam about his defensive impact estimates for the early Lakers where Mikan/Mikkelsen/Pollard/Slater all wind up about equal, but we don't see that as much on other squads. What inputs are leading to that?

[Dutchball97]

Roughly 22 hours and 30 minutes left on the clock.

---

Please have rankings numbers (1., 2., etc) in your votes. Without those numbers, it's kind of hard to track.

---

I'm kind of curious why 1988 Magic is so low on many lists (and even missing on some) while 1987, 1989, 1990 and even 1991 are a lot more popular.
His counting stats were down and the Lakers did not win the title in the most convincing way but he was still massive and aside from his shooting, I don't think he improved in any other category. Actually he was gradually getting worse on D, so I'm kind baffled by Magic's 1988 season being so low for many.

---

For tracking;
Results on Google Sheets

As someone who doesn't have 88 Magic on my list, statistically he had a very clear down year. 10.9 WS compared to 15+ in the other 4 seasons you mentioned is a significant enough difference we shouldn't just ignore. Same goes for him having 5.2 OBPM compared to 7+ in those same 4 seasons (87, 89, 90 and 91 for clarity). In 1986, which is another Magic season I do have in my list, he didn't have his best regular season either but he still quite easily topped his 1988 numbers with 12.1 WS and 6 OBPM.

He did have his highest number of play-off WS in 1988 with 4 but that was mostly due to him also playing the most games and minutes out of any of his post-seasons. His .198 WS/48 there, while good, is tied for only his 8th best post-season with 1984. His 6.3 OBPM that post-season is his 4th best mark but it is below 1986, 1987 and 1990, while being only 0.1 higher than his OBPM in the 1989 and 1991 post-season (with both 89 and 91 being much better regular seasons).

In terms of Magic not being much worse as a player in 88 than he was the years right before and after I agree but as an overall season it quite clearly stands out as not that impressive by Magic's standards according to the metrics we have available.

[DQuinn1575]

Roughly 22 hours and 30 minutes left on the clock.

---

Please have rankings numbers (1., 2., etc) in your votes. Without those numbers, it's kind of hard to track.

---

I'm kind of curious why 1988 Magic is so low on many lists (and even missing on some) while 1987, 1989, 1990 and even 1991 are a lot more popular.
His counting stats were down and the Lakers did not win the title in the most convincing way but he was still massive and aside from his shooting, I don't think he improved in any other category. Actually he was gradually getting worse on D, so I'm kind baffled by Magic's 1988 season being so low for many.

---

For tracking;
Results on Google Sheets

As someone who doesn't have 88 Magic on my list, statistically he had a very clear down year. 10.9 WS compared to 15+ in the other 4 seasons you mentioned is a significant enough difference we shouldn't just ignore. Same goes for him having 5.2 OBPM compared to 7+ in those same 4 seasons (87, 89, 90 and 91 for clarity). In 1986, which is another Magic season I do have in my list, he didn't have his best regular season either but he still quite easily topped his 1988 numbers with 12.1 WS and 6 OBPM.

He did have his highest number of play-off WS in 1988 with 4 but that was mostly due to him also playing the most games and minutes out of any of his post-seasons. His .198 WS/48 there, while good, is tied for only his 8th best post-season with 1984. His 6.3 OBPM that post-season is his 4th best mark but it is below 1986, 1987 and 1990, while being only 0.1 higher than his OBPM in the 1989 and 1991 post-season (with both 89 and 91 being much better regular seasons).

In terms of Magic not being much worse as a player in 88 than he was the years right before and after I agree but as an overall season it quite clearly stands out as not that impressive by Magic's standards according to the metrics we have available.

Scoring and TS% relative to league are both down; the ts% is one of his lowest. His assists and turnovers didn’t change to much. Note the mvp voters agreed; Bird finished ahead of him in mvp voting after Magic beat him out in 87.

Really shows how good both these guys are when a season as clearly best player on championship team is maybe a top 12 season- we will probably get this a couple of more times,but still will be rarest

[Odinn21]

As someone who doesn't have 88 Magic on my list, statistically he had a very clear down year. 10.9 WS compared to 15+ in the other 4 seasons you mentioned is a significant enough difference we shouldn't just ignore. Same goes for him having 5.2 OBPM compared to 7+ in those same 4 seasons (87, 89, 90 and 91 for clarity). In 1986, which is another Magic season I do have in my list, he didn't have his best regular season either but he still quite easily topped his 1988 numbers with 12.1 WS and 6 OBPM.

He did have his highest number of play-off WS in 1988 with 4 but that was mostly due to him also playing the most games and minutes out of any of his post-seasons. His .198 WS/48 there, while good, is tied for only his 8th best post-season with 1984. His 6.3 OBPM that post-season is his 4th best mark but it is below 1986, 1987 and 1990, while being only 0.1 higher than his OBPM in the 1989 and 1991 post-season (with both 89 and 91 being much better regular seasons).

In terms of Magic not being much worse as a player in 88 than he was the years right before and after I agree but as an overall season it quite clearly stands out as not that impressive by Magic's standards according to the metrics we have available.

But taking '86 Magic over '88 Magic due to statistical difference makes no sense to me.

Why Magic metrics are down from 1987 in 1988? His shooting efficiency went down. He scored less points on worse efficiency and that is literally all. His assist/turnover economy was quite high. In fact, after he became the team's offensive leader in half court too after 1985-86 season, his ast/tov ratio in 1988 is the 2nd highest after 1987, higher than 1989, 1990 and 1991.
He went from 5.2 obpm in rs to 6.3 obpm in ps as he had an improvement on efficiency department.

Taking 1986 Magic over 1988 Magic just because some advanced metrics say so, without indulging why, makes on sense to me. I assure you the Lakers wouldn't be able to win against the Pistons in 1988 with '86 Magic instead of '88 Magic. 1988 was the season Kareem was not the clear positive player as he was before, he was just a neutral impact 15 ppg player in that season. Let alone being a team's half court offensive leader.

1988 was a down season for Magic's scoring, but it wasn't that much of a down season that you could take 1986 or any other prior season over it.

Edit;
I think many do not recognise 1988 for the load Magic had to carry. When I look at O-VORP shares for Magic, 1988 ps is one of the standouts (14 or more games);
1. 1991 ps with 47.06% - 19 games, 823 mins
2. 1986 ps with 43.38% - 14 games, 541 mins
3. 1988 ps with 42.24% - 24 games, 965 mins
4. 1983 ps with 41.11% - 15 games, 643 mins
5. 1987 ps with 38.29% - 18 games, 666 mins
6. 1989 ps with 33.84% - 14 games, 518 mins
7. 1984 ps with 33.60% - 21 games, 837 mins
8. 1980 ps with 33.35% - 16 games, 658 mins
9. 1985 ps with 32.22% - 19 games, 687 mins
10. 1982 ps with 30.62% - 14 games, 562 mins

I know that 1986 stays in front of 1988 in there. But just take a look at the gap playtime. That 1988 ps is effectively the 2nd biggest carry-job Magic had to pull.

And even despite having scoring issues in the regular season, his rs rates are in the top half of his career (fwiw almost identical to his 1986 numbers; 34.46% in 1988 and 34.36% in 1986).

[eminence]

I like to do these things somewhat chronologically.

'57 - Russell just missed too many games for the Olympics for this to be in any sort of contention.
'58 - Was on his way to contention, but a serious finals injury that likely costs the team the title brings him up short.
'59 - Woohoo, the first full Russell season, solid RS for the Celtics (-1/+6), 17/23/3 pts/reb/ast and 108 TS+ for Russell. Celtics struggle a bit in the playoffs to limit the Nationals as both Schayes and Yardley get going on offense. Russell plays pretty well offensively. In the Finals the Celtics handle the Lakers with ease, though Russell doesn't do much on offense.
'60 - A similar RS (0/+6), 18/24/4, 107 TS+ for Russell and the Celtics. Tougher playoff road though - first a close 6 gamer against Wilt and the Warriors that the Celtics win on the boards and in the turnover battle, as the Warriors shoot more efficiently and get to the line more. Russell plays well on offense and his work on the boards was huge. Then a weird 7 game series vs the Hawks where most of the games were blowouts one way or the other. I think I very slightly prefer it over the last season, but it's close.
'61 - The Celtics become a bit more imbalanced but overall strength is similar (-3/+8), 17/24/3 and 97 TS+. Russell's efficiency drops to generally slightly below league average for the rest of his career from slightly above. Their best playoff run yet, as they smother the Nats and the Hawks in back to back 5 game series. Schayes/Pettit in particular struggle to hit their usual levels. Think this was the first season the Celtics defense fully transferred to the playoffs. Russell has a good offensive playoff run. Easy 1st so far.
'62 - A similar RS to the season before with a bit of a shift towards playmaking (-2/+8), 19/24/5 and 102 TS+. Much less dominant playoff run, with the Warriors and Lakers both taking them 7. The Warriors series was a battle with Wilt that could've easily gone either way, Russell seemed to have some of his best offensive series against Wilt, at least early in his career. West/Baylor successfully turn the finals into a bit of a shootout that the Celtics manage to clutch out. Russell is good again offensively. Personally I'm significantly less impressed by the Celtics and Russell defense in '62 than in '61. This is #2 for me so far.

Ranking relevant Russell seasons:
'61
'62
'60
'59

Edit: Short pause to come back to this later, will update this post as I go

[70sFan]

I'm also surprised to see 1988 Magic so low. I have him 3rd below 1990, but I strongly considered it to be 2nd. Magic's performance in 1988 finals is nothing short of incredible and I'm afraid some people overestimate the Lakers talent in that season.

Outside of Worthy (decent 2nd option, but nothing amazing historically) and good season from Scott (again, good player but not even a star), this team wasn't stacked at all offensively. Kareem wasn't good center at this point, AC Green was solid but nothing special (he improved later), Cooper started to age.

I can see the case for 1990 and 1989 because of shooting improvement, but definitely not for 1986 (not the same role, played with better team) or 1991 (too weak defensively at this point).

[Dutchball97]

As someone who doesn't have 88 Magic on my list, statistically he had a very clear down year. 10.9 WS compared to 15+ in the other 4 seasons you mentioned is a significant enough difference we shouldn't just ignore. Same goes for him having 5.2 OBPM compared to 7+ in those same 4 seasons (87, 89, 90 and 91 for clarity). In 1986, which is another Magic season I do have in my list, he didn't have his best regular season either but he still quite easily topped his 1988 numbers with 12.1 WS and 6 OBPM.

He did have his highest number of play-off WS in 1988 with 4 but that was mostly due to him also playing the most games and minutes out of any of his post-seasons. His .198 WS/48 there, while good, is tied for only his 8th best post-season with 1984. His 6.3 OBPM that post-season is his 4th best mark but it is below 1986, 1987 and 1990, while being only 0.1 higher than his OBPM in the 1989 and 1991 post-season (with both 89 and 91 being much better regular seasons).

In terms of Magic not being much worse as a player in 88 than he was the years right before and after I agree but as an overall season it quite clearly stands out as not that impressive by Magic's standards according to the metrics we have available.

But taking '86 Magic over '88 Magic due to statistical difference makes no sense to me.

Why Magic metrics are down from 1987 in 1988? His shooting efficiency went down. He scored less points on worse efficiency and that is literally all. His assist/turnover economy was quite high. In fact, after he became the team's offensive leader in half court too after 1985-86 season, his ast/tov ratio in 1988 is the 2nd highest after 1987, higher than 1989, 1990 and 1991.
He went from 5.2 obpm to 6.3 obpm as he had an improvement on efficiency department.

Taking 1986 Magic over 1988 Magic just because some advanced metrics say so, without indulging why, makes on sense to me. I assure you the Lakers wouldn't be able to win against the Pistons in 1988 with '86 Magic instead of '88 Magic. 1988 was the season Kareem was not the clear positive player as he was before, he was just a neutral impact 15 ppg player in that season. Let alone being a team's half court offensive leader.

1988 was a down season for Magic's scoring, but it wasn't that much of a down season that you could take 1986 or any other prior season over it.

Edit;
I think many do not recognise 1988 for the load Magic had to carry. When I look at O-VORP shares for Magic, 1988 ps is one of the standouts (14 or more games);
1. 1991 ps with 47.06% - 19 games, 823 mins
2. 1986 ps with 43.38% - 14 games, 541 mins
3. 1988 ps with 42.24% - 24 games, 965 mins
4. 1983 ps with 41.11% - 15 games, 643 mins
5. 1987 ps with 38.29% - 18 games, 666 mins
6. 1989 ps with 33.84% - 14 games, 518 mins
7. 1984 ps with 33.60% - 21 games, 837 mins
8. 1980 ps with 33.35% - 16 games, 658 mins
9. 1985 ps with 32.22% - 19 games, 687 mins
10. 1982 ps with 30.62% - 14 games, 562 mins

I know that 1986 stays in front of 1988 in there. But just take a look at the gap playtime. That 1988 ps is effectively the 2nd biggest carry-job Magic had to pull.

And even despite having scoring issues in the regular season, his rs rates are in the top half of his career (fwiw almost identical to his 1986 numbers; 34.46% in 1988 and 34.36% in 1986).

You think Magic went from .263 WS/48 and 7.5 OBPM in 1987 to .198 WS/48 and 5.2 OBPM in 1988 only because of scoring efficiency? 1987 wasn't even that good in terms of his efficiency and only somewhat better than 1988. His AST/TO ratio also stayed pretty consistent throughout his career, especially from 85 onwards he had around 12 assists and 4 turnovers untill his first retirement. How can you dismiss the small difference in shooting efficiency but then prioritize an even smaller difference in turnover economy. Besides that his TOV% dipped a couple points in 88 compared to 87, was then almost the same in 89 and better once again in 1990.

Kareem being worse than before in 88 as a reason ahead of 86 but not ahead of 87 is another headscratcher. What about 89 when Kareem averaged 10 ppg or when he wasn't even on the team anymore in 90 and 91? I'm not sure why you want to disregard the metrics so hastily because you're completely convinced Magic became a different player in 87 and was exactly as good the next year. I don't want to accuse you of being too narrative driven but I am confused where your passion for 1988 Magic suddenly came from when the stats don't support it.

[Dutchball97]

I don't think it is a good look to go after someone for giving an honest answer to your question. Besides that why would 1966 Russell be worse than his 1960 and 1961 seasons? His role changed and we pretty much all agree he took a significant step up in the 62 season. Then why does 1966 look worse? Well he scored less on worse efficiency. That shouldn't even impact a defensive player like Russell nearly as much as someone like Magic who produced nearly all his value on the offensive side of the ball but yet it isn't a problem for Magic, while Russell does get penalized for it.

I understand it if you have a better understanding of Magic's game than Russell's due to more footage being available but if that is the case how can we even compare them? As I see it that just sounds like double standards in their evaluation.

[Odinn21]

You think Magic went from .263 WS/48 and 7.5 OBPM in 1987 to .198 WS/48 and 5.2 OBPM in 1988 only because of scoring efficiency? 1987 wasn't even that good in terms of his efficiency and only somewhat better than 1988. His AST/TO ratio also stayed pretty consistent throughout his career, especially from 85 onwards he had around 12 assists and 4 turnovers untill his first retirement. How can you dismiss the small difference in shooting efficiency but then prioritize an even smaller difference in turnover economy. Besides that his TOV% dipped a couple points in 88 compared to 87, was then almost the same in 89 and better once again in 1990.

Kareem being worse than before in 88 as a reason ahead of 86 but not ahead of 87 is another headscratcher. What about 89 when Kareem averaged 10 ppg or when he wasn't even on the team anymore in 90 and 91? I'm not sure why you want to disregard the metrics so hastily because you're completely convinced Magic became a different player in 87 and was exactly as good the next year. I don't want to accuse you of being too narrative driven but I am confused where your passion for 1988 Magic suddenly came from when the stats don't support it.

OBPM is much more scoring oriented than before.
They broke the first formula to avoid ratings like 2017 Westbrook and they also moved towards scoring volume to appease Jordan fans.
I think you should look at how much 2+ ppg swings OBPM around. The most obvious I'm aware from recollection is; Kareem's OBPM dropping by nearly full 2.0 rate from 1978 to 1979 just because his ppg went down.

---

WS is a pretty bad argument.
Magic was a 0.263 WS/48 player on a team with 63.1 WS total in 1987.
Magic was a 0.199 WS/48 player on a team with 55.1 WS total in 1988.
That's 14.5% swing even without looking at playtime.

Now;
The Lakers were +751 in the 80 games Magic played and +12 in the 2 games he didn't in 1987.
The Lakers were +516 in the 72 games Magic played and -37 in the 10 games he didn't in 1988.
Considering WS starts moving from seasonal team MoV numbers from team total, the trends in those 2 seasons and how the WS formula works in general; that's another 6%.

That's 21.4% gap without going into anything about Magic's play. That 21.4% gap coming from WS design alone puts that 0.199 mark around 0.241. I'm sure you wouldn't be bashing Magic with WS if that mark was around 0.240. And as I said these are all just based on WS design.

I mean that closing part is interesting because have you ever seen me saying anything based on WS-WS/48? Stats do not support what I'm saying and that stat being WS? Come on...

---

1988 was the season the Lakers had a major transition from Kareem being good to Kareem not being in their plans for major roles. They were transitioning from Kareem-Magic-Worthy core to Magic-Worthy-Scott core. And if you're not paying attention to that just because they were still frontrunners for the title, how and when it happened, it's probably because Magic had that 1988 season.

1986 and 1988 are a lot different because Magic had different roles and different impacts. I mean maybe you have to see for yourself how different it was between the 2 dynamics. I mean you're accusing me of focusing on how the transition happened and what happened in the meantime by saying how about '90 and '91 when Kareem wasn't on the team? Really? Just really?..

[Dutchball97]

You think Magic went from .263 WS/48 and 7.5 OBPM in 1987 to .198 WS/48 and 5.2 OBPM in 1988 only because of scoring efficiency? 1987 wasn't even that good in terms of his efficiency and only somewhat better than 1988. His AST/TO ratio also stayed pretty consistent throughout his career, especially from 85 onwards he had around 12 assists and 4 turnovers untill his first retirement. How can you dismiss the small difference in shooting efficiency but then prioritize an even smaller difference in turnover economy. Besides that his TOV% dipped a couple points in 88 compared to 87, was then almost the same in 89 and better once again in 1990.

Kareem being worse than before in 88 as a reason ahead of 86 but not ahead of 87 is another headscratcher. What about 89 when Kareem averaged 10 ppg or when he wasn't even on the team anymore in 90 and 91? I'm not sure why you want to disregard the metrics so hastily because you're completely convinced Magic became a different player in 87 and was exactly as good the next year. I don't want to accuse you of being too narrative driven but I am confused where your passion for 1988 Magic suddenly came from when the stats don't support it.

OBPM is much more scoring oriented than before.
They broke the first formula to avoid ratings like 2017 Westbrook and they also moved towards scoring volume to appease Jordan fans.
I think you should look at how much 2+ ppg swings OBPM around. The most obvious I'm aware from recollection is; Kareem's OBPM dropping by nearly full 2.0 rate from 1978 to 1979 just because his ppg went down.

---

WS is a pretty bad argument.
Magic was a 0.263 WS/48 player on a team with 63.1 WS total in 1987.
Magic was a 0.199 WS/48 player on a team with 55.1 WS total in 1988.
That's 14.5% swing even without looking at playtime.

Now;
The Lakers were +751 in the 80 games Magic played and +12 in the 2 games he didn't in 1987.
The Lakers were +516 in the 72 games Magic played and -37 in the 10 games he didn't in 1988.
Considering WS starts moving from seasonal team MoV numbers from team total, the trends in those 2 seasons and how the WS formula works in general; that's another 6%.

That's 21.4% gap without going into anything about Magic's play. That 21.4% gap coming from WS design alone puts that 0.199 mark around 0.241. I'm sure you wouldn't be bashing Magic with WS if that mark was around 0.240. And as I said these are all just based on WS design.

I mean that closing part is interesting because have you ever seen me saying anything based on WS-WS/48? Stats do not support what I'm saying and that stat being WS? Come on...

---

1988 was the season the Lakers had a major transition from Kareem being good to Kareem not being in their plans for major roles. They were transitioning from Kareem-Magic-Worthy core to Magic-Worthy-Scott core. And if you're not paying attention to that just because they were still frontrunners for the title, how and when it happened, it's probably because Magic had that 1988 season.

1986 and 1988 are a lot different because Magic had different roles and different impacts. I mean maybe you have to see for yourself how different it was between the 2 dynamics. I mean you're accusing me of focusing on how the transition happened and what happened in the meantime by saying how about '90 and '91 when Kareem wasn't on the team? Really? Just really?..

Once again if a transition in role and level of teammates is so important 66 Russell should by no means be below his 60 and 61 season.

The main reason I'm annoyed at this discourse though is that it all seems very dismissive of the voters that do put a heavy emphasis on the limited amount of stats we do have and don't just want to rely on the eye test. Everyone has acknowledged the limitations we have in terms of evaluating these players prior to 96/97 based on statistics and we have to make choices. When these conclusions aren't the same as what you come up with that shouldn't warrant a post saying all these voters make no sense in their approach.

[ty 4191]

The crucial factor that nobody has mentioned here yet, and needs to be factored in, is strength of competition.

The Eastern Conference/Division was drastically stronger in both the 1960's and the 1980's than the Western Conference/Division.

Including the playoffs, from 1960-1969, the Eastern Division played 2068 games against the Western Division. The East's collective winning percentage was a staggering .598 against the West.

During Magic's entire prime, including the playoffs, from 1980-1991, the Eastern Division played 3280 games against the Western Conference. The East's collective winning percentage was .537 against the West. Night and Day between the East and West, overall.

Including the playoffs, the Lakers winning percentage against the Western Conference from 1980-1991 was .736 in 846 games. Against the East, it was .665 in 325 games.

As a side note: 1980-1991, Including the playoffs, the Celtics had a .683 winning percentage against the Eastern Conference, but .732 against the Western Conference.

Sidenote: Bird faced drastically better teams than Magic, overall, and should be ranked higher.

Magic Johnson is quite overrated.

[Odinn21]

Once again if a transition in role and level of teammates is so important 66 Russell should by no means be below his 60 and 61 season.

The main reason I'm annoyed at this discourse though is that it all seems very dismissive of the voters that do put a heavy emphasis on the limited amount of stats we do have and don't just want to rely on the eye test. Everyone has acknowledged the limitations we have in terms of evaluating these players prior to 96/97 based on statistics and we have to make choices. When these conclusions aren't the same as what you come up with that shouldn't warrant a post saying all these voters make no sense in their approach.

I said "make no sense" because there was no regard for situation and environment, only deductions from stats which are incomplete without prior suggestions to be proved or disproved.

I don't think you're aware of such implementation is consistent only if you do the same for 1996 Jordan over 1992 Jordan, 1988 Bird over 1985 Bird, 2010 James over 2012 James, 1986/1987 Olajuwon over 1989/1990 Olajuwon and some more.
I'm not saying there are not cases to be made but they are not that definitive to a level having something like 1986 Magic over 1988/1989 Magic.

*: Though I must say, even though I didn't say to be dismissive and I had no intention to come off like that, sorry for the tone. It's not possible to see eye to eye every single time and I had no such intention. Cheers.

[Dutchball97]

Once again if a transition in role and level of teammates is so important 66 Russell should by no means be below his 60 and 61 season.

The main reason I'm annoyed at this discourse though is that it all seems very dismissive of the voters that do put a heavy emphasis on the limited amount of stats we do have and don't just want to rely on the eye test. Everyone has acknowledged the limitations we have in terms of evaluating these players prior to 96/97 based on statistics and we have to make choices. When these conclusions aren't the same as what you come up with that shouldn't warrant a post saying all these voters make no sense in their approach.

I don't think I said anything dismissive. I said "make no sense" because there was no regard for situation and environment, only deductions from stats which are incomplete without prior suggestions to be proved or disproved.

I don't think you're aware of such implementation is consistent only if you do the same for 1996 Jordan over 1992 Jordan, 1988 Bird over 1985 Bird, 2010 James over 2012 James, 1986/1987 Olajuwon over 1989/1990 Olajuwon and some more.
I'm not saying there are not cases to be made but they are not that definitive to a level having something like 1986 Magic over 1988/1989 Magic.

There is a difference between questioning stats because of context like changing roles within a team, strength of teammates and the state of the league/opponents and a near complete dismissal of stats like you did because of those factors.

[Odinn21]

There is a difference between questioning stats because of context like changing roles within a team, strength of teammates and the state of the league/opponents and a near complete dismissal of stats like you did because of those factors.

Edited my last post (probably while you were typing this post of yours). I know I had no intentions to be dismissive, and while knowing my intention from within, I didn't take it the way you did but looking back at it, it's obvious my wording was poor. Sorry for the tone.