Retro Player of the Year 1992-93 UPDATE — Hakeem Olajuwon

OhayoKD · Post #21 » by **OhayoKD** » Fri Nov 29, 2024 7:57 am

One_and_Done wrote:Jordan was “padding” his stats against weak foes, when his best series was the finals and his stats in that series were great (against a great team, that pretty clearly was the best team in the West).

Why are you switching from 'weak defense" to "overall" while pulling up offensive numbers?

His best offensive series came against the...checks notes... "great" -1.3 Suns defense that went

+3 vs the Sonics
+/- 0 vs the Spurs
-4 vs the Lakers

On the back of this incredibly valuable scoring outburst, the Bulls were a whopping 1 point better against a defense that was decent in the regular season and average in the playoffs. And apparently that bridges the chasm in demonstrated(not hypothetical) impact between Jordan and Hakeem in the RS.

They won 57 and had one of the best SRS in the league, they didn’t win 50 with an SRS of 3 like some coasting teams. I find it hard to punish players for this sort of coasting, e.g. Jordan was rested 4 games

Ah, but in 1994, when they were fresh off three-straight final runs, and 5 deep playoff runs, the Bulls were suddenly going all out in the regular-season, even though their best player was beefing with management, they had a terrible start getting adjusted to Jordan's absence, saw their best two players miss games they didn't miss in 1993, and they also improved in the playoffs like the 93 Bulls, outscoring the same opponent Jordan almost choked to with home-court being the decisive factor(something they lost because Pippen and Grant were less healthy in 94 than 93, guess that's to Jordan's credit to.).

You are not comparing Jordan to other coasting players, you are comparing him to Hakeem Olajuwon. Magic, a player Jordan doesn't actually beat out in demonstrated impact(and you were forced to resort to hypothetical nonsense vs), got no pass for "coasting" fresh off multiple titles in 87 and 88. But now it doesn't actually matter what happened in the season in question. Jordan won(something you didn't care about in 1988), so even though his impact was much lower in the regular-season and the playoffs we're going to decide that "they had won 2 championsips" is suppressing 93, but "they had won 3 championships" didn't affect 94.

Joke.

I think it’s fair to say Jordan didn’t shoot great in the Knicks series, and we should hold that against him, but it’s silly to focus too much on it because we never got to see how Hakeem would perform against a team like the Knicks in the WCF this year; they were too busy losing in the 2nd round to a weaker Sonics outfit. This is similar to when people hold Kawhi’s injury in the WCF’s against him.

Kawhi being injured is not the same as Jordan **** the bed, something Hakeem did not do, hence why his team didn't underperform (and yes, them coming a few points within outright winning with the same team that went 2-10 last year does indeed make "could Hakeem have beaten the Sonics" laughable. Especially when trying to champion Jordan for, with one of the most loaded supporting casts history, doing his best to complete the first ever come-from-ahead 3-0 loss.

Not so laughable? Could the Bulls have beaten Hakeem despite a comical talent advantage? Well if RS-record is important now

There does appear to be some meat to this statement.....

In '94, they split the series against the Rockets in the rs 1-1 (losing by 7 on the road, and winning by 6 at home).

Looking at adjacent years (sort of blending rosters): they were 0-2 vs the Rockets in '93 (losing by 14 at home, and by 11 on the road); and were 1-1 vs the Rockets in '95 (winning by 19 at home, but losing by 23 on the road).

So were 2-4 vs them overall across three years, and an average outcome of being outscored by 5 pts. Weirdly they were 0-2 WITH Jordan, 2-2 vs the Rockets without him (though being outscored by 1.25 pts on average).

For their careers Houston was 15-13 vs Chicago. During the first three peat Houston was 5-1. Way more help and a losing record but that hypothetical matters less for some reason

AEnigma · Post #22 » by **AEnigma** » Fri Nov 29, 2024 8:19 am

One_and_Done wrote:I’m not going to have time to respond to every one of the points that are made here, so I’ll make an effort to address everything here.

Enigma:

1) Narratives are not false just because you disagree with them.

Correct, they are false when they do not reflect reality.

The question is did Hakeem do what he was supposed to? I don’t think so, because if Hakeem is a Duncan/Jordan type of impact then he should have beaten the Sonics.

Here is a question: how many career road wins does Duncan have. How many series did Duncan win where he was not favoured.

Hakeem was a road dog and went to Game 7 overtime. Did he exceed expectations? No, not in a particularly meaningful way. But to say he failed to meet them is an unserious stance without a basis. And Hakeem as a player consistently did more than he was supposed to do. Unlike Duncan.

Jordan has a little more of an argument because he did go on the road and win, but he also received substantially more support from his team. If Hakeem had scored like Jordan did against the Knicks, the Sonics probably win in five or six games rather than in seven.

3) Homecourt in 01 or 04 is completely irrelevant. Firstly, back then the playoffs was in the 2-3-2 format, so you got no real advantage from having HC.

… The advantage is getting Game 7 at home, same as always.

Secondly, the Lakers were the better team in 01 and 04, they just coast in the RS and/or had injuries. You can’t take HCA seriously to determine who was the real favourite to win (and more importantly, who should have been the favourite to win).

No, of course not, we go off OaD vibes.

4) The Sonics illegal D didn’t stop other teams, including the Bulls in 96. It stopped Hakeem from winning, and Hakeem seemed unusually weak to it.

The Rockets were weak to it, but you continue to show no ability to cite anything specific to Hakeem.

Not because of some talent advantage that should have left him outgunned against the Sonics.

If we ignore the Sonics being better 2 through 10.

If Hakeem was the player you think he was, he should have crushed the Sonics.

No, because Hakeem does not control whether his guards can handle an aggressive press.

If Duncan and Kobe were the players you think they were, Duncan should never have lost to Kobe.

It was something unique to Hakeem and his inability to react to the pressure created by the Sonics zoning.

What inability. You have no citation. Nothing. He lost, ergo, his fault. He “reacted” exactly how he was meant to react. Stop with these contentless dodges. Offer an actual criticism or admit you have absolutely no clue what happened in that series.

Not only did Hakeem lose in the 93 and 96 playoffs to the Sonics, but his record in the RS from 93 to 96 was 3-11 against them. The RS isn’t everything, but I think that speaks pretty loudly when looked at in conjunction with the PS losses and the commentary of the time.

You mean with him being better against them in the postseason?

You don’t have to agree with that narrative, but it is not a false one and people can genuinely hold to it as many do; and I have also watched games from that era, and that was my takeaway at the time also.

At zero point have you articulated what actually happened. That is why it is false. No different from you claiming young Hakeem lacked intensity. You transparently know nothing about the player but are actively backforming explanations for his “failure”.

5) You complain about me buying fake narratives, but in truth you are all over the place with your explanation for why Hakeem lost. You were just telling us a few posts ago that it wasn’t Hakeem’s fault that his team mates couldn’t convert open looks, yet as I noted Hakeem’s team mates were shooting over 38% on a high volume of 3s for that era.

Shooting 38% over 7 games averaging 5.5 made threes is not a contradiction of the idea that they did not capitalise enough off the loosened attention to win the series.

I don’t think anyone at the time would have looked at the Rockets shooting 15 three point shots a game and thought “damn, the Sonics were too effective at cutting off the 3pt shot”

Oh cool, yet another invented narrative.

or “Hakeem’s guys just aren’t getting enough 3s up”.

And another.

The Rockets only shot an average of 13 threes a game that year in the RS, and only 14 in the PS, and their 3pt % was higher in the 93 Sonics series than for the RS or PS that year as well. Blaming them for missing open shots or not taking enough shots and letting Hakeem down doesn’t ring true at all.

Embarrassing way to assess the sport. Do you intend to put any effort into this at all? “If they shoot on average higher from three, that means they should have won the series but for Hakeem!”

We can go back and forth on why Hakeem lost, but at the end of the day he did; to a team he should have beaten if he was on the level of a Duncan or Jordan.

Yet again, based on absolutely nothing. Neither Duncan nor Jordan ever came as close to winning an equivalently disadvantaged series.

A team who he would lose to A LOT, and the reasons for which were discussed A LOT.

You have yet to discuss any concrete reasons which reflect what actually happened in that series.

6) In terms of the points you made about Duncan, I won’t get into them too much because he’s not even in the league yet, but I flat out disagree. Duncan faced many double and triple teams, and was often swarmed.

Nowhere near the degree as what Hakeem saw against the Sonics.

He also didn’t have the luxury of illegal defence to shield him for most of his prime.

Empty statement yet again tied to nothing concrete.

Saying Duncan had “multiple hall of famers” is disingenuous, given the level those “hall of famers” were in 01-03, which are the years people point to in order to cite Duncan’s lift on a bad team (which you know, because you’ve been told this 100 times).

2003 postseason Manu was better than anyone on the 1993/94 Rockets, as was 2001 Robinson — not that it prevented Duncan from being the worst performing team against the Lakers that year. And in 2002 he lost 4-1.

Citing Duncan’s “HCA record” is disingenuous, because you’re citing it over his whole career and not his prime (98-07),

It is true over his prime too.

and you’re ignoring the context (e.g. Lakers were coasting or had RS injuries, and were not really the worse team, etc).

Nice thing is that I need no additional context to identify that the Sonics were a better team, the favoured team, and the team with homecourt advantage.

I thought “record with HCA” was something only Jordan fans still cited.

So did I, and then you started expressing what we all could tell was just very real concern about Hakeem’s “homecourt losses” in 1985 and 1987.

We can all be a bit more nuanced than that.

We can, but you choose only to be selectively.

Every year of Duncan’s prime he met or exceeded expectations (98-07),

Wrong, you just retroactively decided that every team that beat him was always going to beat him.

“HCA” has nothing to do with that.

Partially true. Homecourt advantage was only relevant in 2006, when he had a Game 7 at home and still lost. Every other time he did not even get that far.

You can say “wrong” all you like, but I don’t agree,

You can disagree all you like, but it does not change that you very evidently have not and seemingly cannot offer descriptions based in reality.

and I don’t think anyone else is going to be convinced by that line of argument either.

Good to hear, because your track record speaks for itself.

Duncan’s support cast in 01-03, and especially 02, was worse than what Hakeem had in 93-96.

Per usual, nothing real supports that stance.

I’ll stop there. What I find interesting, is that I have yet to hear anyone who is backing Hakeem tell me if they feel he could have beaten the Sonics if he’d played them in 94 or 95. If someone is going to reply to me, I’d rather they focused on that point as I think it highlights something important.

Yes, because the addition of Cassell and later Drexler bolstered their guard play to a higher level than it had been in 1993, and Hakeem himself was substantially better than he was in 1996.

Once again, wholly unserious position. Lose on the road in Game 7 overtime: “could a deeper version of this team do better????”

One_and_Done · Post #23 » by **One_and_Done** » Fri Nov 29, 2024 8:23 am

I'm not rewarding Hakeem for underachieving in the RS. If he's that impactful they shouldn't be the underdog in the playoffs so much in the first place.

OhayoKD · Post #24 » by **OhayoKD** » Fri Nov 29, 2024 8:25 am

One_and_Done wrote:I'm not rewarding Hakeem for underachieving in the RS. If he's that impactful they shouldn't be the underdog in the playoffs so much in the first place.

2-10 to 55 is "underperforming"

but

57 to 55 "doing what they should"
27 to 50 "easily best player in the league"

If Jordan was that impactful, maybe you wouldn't need to keep flip flopping between whether reality matters or not.

One_and_Done · Post #25 » by **One_and_Done** » Fri Nov 29, 2024 8:34 am

OhayoKD wrote:
One_and_Done wrote:I'm not rewarding Hakeem for underachieving in the RS. If he's that impactful they shouldn't be the underdog in the playoffs so much in the first place.

2-10 to 55 is "underperforming"

but

57 to 55 "doing what they should"
27 to 50 "easily best player in the league"

If Jordan was that impactful, maybe you wouldn't need to keep flip flopping between whether impact matters or not.

Leaving aside how representative that 12 game sample is, given the Rockets were 16-10 without Hakeem the previous year, you're missing the point. 1993 Hakeem is getting credit for carrying a weak team. I have him #2 for that reason, when I ranked pre-93 Hakeem much lower most years. I have Hakeem ranked in almost a dead heat with Jordan.

The point being made above is in relation to how Hakeem carried teams (or rather, did not carry them), pre-93 when I see him as a significantly less impactful player.

AEnigma · Post #26 » by **AEnigma** » Fri Nov 29, 2024 8:40 am

1-1 without him in 1994 (+14.5 on/off), 3-7 without him in 1995 (+11.9 on/off), 1-9 without him in 1996 (+10.3 on/off). Just so tough to determine whether he was carrying bad teams.

jjgp111292 · Post #27 » by **jjgp111292** » Fri Nov 29, 2024 8:51 am

Why do these discussions about the 94 Bulls leave out the fact that Bulls added Toni Kukoc and found suitable replacements for the aging and oft-injured rotation guys from the 93 team? Not to mention, the absence of Jordan shifted their style to a grind it out, defense-first game in a league that was increasingly tilting towards defense (4 PPG league average decline from 93 to 94 and the ORTG slipping below 107 for the first time since '83)

I just don't see how the Bulls playing well for a a full season without MJ but with a retooled roster and gameplan is some indictment on his value...especially when you consider the fact that when he returned in 95, a team that was 34-32 suddenly finished the season 13-4 even with his efficiency being putrid. I mean, if even a rusty version of MJ shooting 41% could lift a struggling Bulls team up that much...*shrugs*

OhayoKD · Post #28 » by **OhayoKD** » Fri Nov 29, 2024 8:58 am

One_and_Done wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:
One_and_Done wrote:I'm not rewarding Hakeem for underachieving in the RS. If he's that impactful they shouldn't be the underdog in the playoffs so much in the first place.

2-10 to 55 is "underperforming"

but

57 to 55 "doing what they should"
27 to 50 "easily best player in the league"

If Jordan was that impactful, maybe you wouldn't need to keep flip flopping between whether impact matters or not.

Leaving aside how representative that 12 game sample is, given the Rockets were 16-10 without Hakeem the previous year, you're missing the point. 1993 Hakeem is getting credit for carrying a weak team. I have him #2 for that reason, when I ranked pre-93 Hakeem much lower most years. I have Hakeem ranked in almost a dead heat with Jordan.

You're welcome to combine 91 and 92...93 Hakeem still torches 93 MJ.

You were willing to put Jordan above the gold standard of impact signals of the era, "easily" when he carried his weak team to the worst performance any star's team put vs Detroit. But Hakeem apparently cannot be credited as #1 because the team he was blasting jordan in impact by taking them to 55 wins, narrowly lost to another 55-win team. facing a season whose impact looks so **** you along with millions of so-called history keepers have repeated "well see when the Bulls were pushing for a three-peat they weren't going all out, but when they were pushing for a 4-peat, suffered major injuries, and they almost beat the team Jordan almost lost to in 93? nah, please take that at face value"

The point being made above is in relation to how Hakeem carried teams (or rather, did not carry them), pre-93 when I see him as a significantly less impactful player.

I don't care

OhayoKD · Post #29 » by **OhayoKD** » Fri Nov 29, 2024 9:27 am

jjgp111292 wrote:I just don't see how the Bulls playing well for a a full season without MJ but with a retooled roster and gameplan is some indictment on his value...

Because some people value making teams win, not "let me tear down other more valuable players with a bunch of baseless theory i can't prove or test but fits my priors".

If Jordan was an above average rim-protector, an all-time playmaker, or an all-time floor-general, the Bulls likely do better when he's there and fall more when he's gone. He is none of those things and him not being any of those things makes him worse than if he was. It's quite simple. Impact matters. The totality of what you contribute matters. How that contribution affects teams over large samples matters. PER does not.

That retooled roster and game plan didn't stop the Bulls from starting the season poorly trying to figure out what to do with Pete Myers as his replacement. It also didn't stop their best two players miss games they didn't in 93, and it didn't stop Pippen hating management as well as beefing with one of those additions, someone the Bulls almost traded him for.

But none of that is told when dressing up the beloved per-merchant as a goat candidate.

especially when you consider the fact that when he returned in 95, a team that was 34-32 suddenly finished the season 13-4 even with his efficiency being putrid. I mean, if even a rusty version of MJ shooting 41% could lift a struggling Bulls team up that much...*shrugs*

We did consider it. Going by record it's the best signal of his career. The problem is all the signals from the "non-rusty" better years are worse, and that apparently career-best impact disappears in the playoffs as they lose in the 2nd round to a soon-to-be swept finalist.

It also doesn't help SRS paints that leap as far more pedestrian (+4). Even if we rather generously use 1992 instead of 1993 (The Bulls best srs), Jordan grades at +7 if you ignore Pippen getting hurt, and +5 if you don't.

That massaged signal does not put him as a peer to Hakeem who is vastly better at the most important aspect of defense and is much closer to him as a scorer and creator (the latter being a matter of reasonable debate) then Jordan is to Hakeem at the attributes that allowed Russell, an actual goat candidate, to 8-peat, and then win 2-titles with less help, against better competition, than Jordan's ever won with. That's why it's absurd for people who did not care that Magic was winning and Jordan was getting torched in 88, to now argue Jordan was actually POY over peak Hakeem in a year he took the regular-season off, and Ewing outplayed him.

One_and_Done · Post #30 » by **One_and_Done** » Fri Nov 29, 2024 9:38 am

I mean, if we ignored things like the law of diminishing returns, and coasting, and all other context (new players, changed SRS, different playoff success), etc, then the 94 Bulls would be a strong counterpoint to Jordan's impact. Unfortunately, those things exist.

I also would suggest you and Enigma take a deep breath. If I was posting with the tone & language you guys are, the mods would have issued multiple infractions at this point. You are not going to convince people with that tone. If your goal is not to convince people, that's cool, but I doubt it. That's coming from someone who has no problem being blunt, and is fairly indifferent to social criticism.

If you go to the general board and ask where Hakeem ranked in 93, I doubt he'd be voted top 2. If you have a visceral reaction to me saying 'it's basically a deadheat between the 2', it's just going to get worse when the majority tells you he's not even 2nd or 3rd. I'm probably the last person to be accusing of buying into Jordan hype. He's not in my top 3 all-time, and I'm called a Jordan hater on the GB.

OhayoKD · Post #31 » by **OhayoKD** » Fri Nov 29, 2024 9:41 am

One_and_Done wrote:I mean, if we ignored things like the law of diminishing returns, and coasting, and all other context (new players, changed SRS, different playoff success), etc, then the 94 Bulls would be a strong counterpoint to Jordan's impact. Unfortunately, those things exist.

You ignored playoff success, injury, and coasting for 94, and ignored diminishing returns, "coasting", and changed players for Magic in 88/89.

Keep projecting though

One_and_Done · Post #32 » by **One_and_Done** » Fri Nov 29, 2024 9:50 am

OhayoKD wrote:
One_and_Done wrote:I mean, if we ignored things like the law of diminishing returns, and coasting, and all other context (new players, changed SRS, different playoff success), etc, then the 94 Bulls would be a strong counterpoint to Jordan's impact. Unfortunately, those things exist.

You ignored playoff success, injury, and coasting for 94, and ignored diminishing returns, "coasting", and changed players for Magic in 88/89.

Keep projecting though

Just because people came to a different conclusion about the context than you did, it doesn't mean they ignored it.

OhayoKD · Post #33 » by **OhayoKD** » Fri Nov 29, 2024 10:53 am

Plan on coming back to elaborate later but just in case, will go "barebones" for now

Voting Post

1. Hakeem

Best player quite easily. One of the best seasons of the era, argument as the best. Potentially a league-leading creator.

Both in terms of volume
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2420305
And quality"
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=114702898#p114702898

Is the league's most dynamic defender as well as it's (arguably) best rim-protector (this feels like something to track but I'm behind schedule there already). Russelian effect on opposing star bigs's effiency, comes as close to 1 to 5 as anyone from this era, was tracked as the far away best rim protector on a team going -10 vs dynastic offenses in his 2nd year:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2415133

Range of reasonable impact interpretations ranging from better than Jordan to Era-best peak

Spoiler:

Plenty of corroboration too:

Spoiler:

Oh and he's arguably the best playoff-riser post-Mikan
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2314623
He leads MVPs, along with Lebron, in terms of srs-upsets and road-wins and we now enter the most impressive period of postseason elevation of his career:

Spoiler:

This is about what "easily the best" looks like. In a year he will join a small small club of players who can say they've won titles with teams that lost more games than they won without them on the court. For 93, he will have to settle for the recognition of a few people posting at an internet forum: that he was league's standard before he was a champion.

2. Micheal Jordan
3. Patrick Ewing

Ewing out played Jordan. I'm pretty sure. Ewing outplaying Jordan is the main reason he almost beat Jordan. I'm sure of that too. Ewing didn't win. Duh. Ewing won more in the regular season. Duh. Ewing had less help in the regular season. Unclear. Ewing had less help in the playoffs. Pretty sure.

Jordan's (tentative) advantage is quite simple: The Knicks series was the nadir of his season. It was also the peak of Ewings. Do I punish Jordan for his nadir happening to come against Ewing's peak?

To convince me to keep jordan or to switch to ewing is pretty simple. Compel me that Ewing had less help overall, or that Jordan did. Jordan gets a tiebreak for winning the title(15-4 vs +4srs as JG noted), having a bunch of top 10 ever worthy-signals, and just pure benefit of the doubt. His team also had higher SRS than Ewing's.

But the prospect of Ewing being a better creator than advertised, along with outplaying him head to head, and having an obviously massive defensive advantage is why I'm giving y'all 2 days to move me. I'm very high on bigs these days, and it's not lost on me Jordan having his Nadir vs Ewing is, in large part, thanks to Patrick Ewing. If his teammates did not repeatedly shine in the biggest spots where he dramatically faltered, Jordan loses to Ewing and the question becomes whether he is even top 3 or 4.

That hypothetical isn't enough on it's own, but if someone can pair it with a convincing case for Ewing being at least comparable to Jordan for the first 2 rounds and the regular-season, it becomes pretty compelling.

4. David Robinson.

No playoff collapse and reasonably successful. Obviously an impact moster in the regular-season though this robinson was scoring alot less. A big year for big-men.

5. Barkley
But he was MVP!

Yes. But if I am going to bash Jordan for 93-94, it's only fair I note Barkley's team barely improved when he was traded. Also, despite the closer series, Barkley's whole "i scored 10 points more effeciently than Prime MJ" thing is gone.

OPOY
1. Micheal Jordan
2. Hakeem Olajuwon
3. Barkley

DPOY
1. Hakeem Olajuwon
2. Patrick Ewing
3. David Robinson

AEnigma · Post #34 » by **AEnigma** » Fri Nov 29, 2024 1:35 pm

One_and_Done wrote:I mean, if we ignored things like the law of diminishing returns,

You keep saying this like it reflects any sort of actual principle of basketball. You just cite it whenever results fail to replicate, regardless of timing. “This team won twice already, so that means in Year 3 they will inevitably play worse even in the postseason, before rebounding in Year 4.” Maybe Bill Russell’s most convincing case for GOAThood is somehow being immune to this supposed basketball maxim.

and coasting

Was Jordan coasting against the Knicks? If so, does that merit reward?

and all other context (new players, changed SRS,

Since when have you cared about that?

different playoff success)

Yes, famously no one has ever brought up that the 1994 Bulls lost to the Knicks.

etc, then the 94 Bulls would be a strong counterpoint to Jordan's impact. Unfortunately, those things exist.

Yes, they exist, and “unfortunately” they still make him look less impactful than peak Hakeem.

I also would suggest you and Enigma take a deep breath. You are not going to convince people with that tone. If your goal is not to convince people, that's cool, but I doubt it. That's coming from someone who has no problem being blunt, and is fairly indifferent to social criticism.

Then bluntly, you need to have a track record of ever convincing someone to be able to make that determination. I do not to expect to convince you, because you never change. But what I have found is that you stubbornly clinging to bad arguments at every turn ends up making people less supportive, not more, so the longer this stretches on with you unable to articulate a real criticism of his play, the better Hakeem looks.

With that said, I acknowledge that both of us have reached the point where we are starting to circle in unproductive ways. If you have nothing to add beyond what you have already said, we can leave it here.

If you go to the general board and ask where Hakeem ranked in 93, I doubt he'd be voted top 2.

If so, it would be entirely because of Barkley being more successful. Ask the same board whether they would take 1994/95 Hakeem over any Barkley, and it would be overwhelmingly more lopsided the other direction. Outside of with Hakeem himself, you have never cared about success, so the comparison is irrelevant. This Hakeem is a demonstrably better regular season player almost across the board than those Hakeems, and there is really nothing to suggest he was a worse postseason player.

If you have a visceral reaction to me saying 'it's basically a deadheat between the 2', it's just going to get worse when the majority tells you he's not even 2nd or 3rd.

As already I said — although lack of post reading has been a common refrain here — I do not care about you placing Hakeem second, I care about you transparently inventing reasons to do so.

I'm probably the last person to be accusing of buying into Jordan hype. He's not in my top 3 all-time, and I'm called a Jordan hater on the GB.

I recognise that this part is more applicable to Ohayo, but it is irrelevant when you have so much more blatant disdain for everyone else in the era, regardless of whether that disdain has a factual foundation.

jjgp111292 · Post #35 » by **jjgp111292** » Fri Nov 29, 2024 1:39 pm

OhayoKD wrote:
jjgp111292 wrote:I just don't see how the Bulls playing well for a a full season without MJ but with a retooled roster and gameplan is some indictment on his value...

Because some people value making teams win, not "let me tear down other more valuable players with a bunch of baseless theory i can't prove or test but fits my priors".

If Jordan was an above average rim-protector, an all-time playmaker, or an all-time floor-general, the Bulls likely do better when he's there and fall more when he's gone. He is none of those things and him not being any of those things makes him worse than if he was. It's quite simple. Impact matters. The totality of what you contribute matters. How that contribution affects teams over large samples matters. PER does not.

That retooled roster and game plan didn't stop the Bulls from starting the season poorly trying to figure out what to do with Pete Myers as his replacement. It also didn't stop their best two players miss games they didn't in 93, and it didn't stop Pippen hating management as well as beefing with one of those additions, someone the Bulls almost traded him for.

But none of that is told when dressing up the beloved per-merchant as a goat candidate.

So in other words...they struggled to find an identity without MJ before figuring out how to play together and exceeded expectations

! Never seen that before. Nowhere have I said that Pippen wasn't a great player and capable of leading a team on his own, just that this idea that MJ was just some rich man's Adrian Dantley eating off his supporting cast seems like logic that only comes from people that can be charitably described as overindexing on heliocentric ball and at worst, trying to push an agenda for a certain guy and the ideology behind him (an ideaology I actually kinda support!).

MJ's impact signals are pretty hard to measure compared to his peers when you consider the fact that from 86-93 he missed a grand total of 7 games with a supporting cast that improved year-by-year while other guys had less reliable help from season to season (and even then, the tiny sample we have looks...pretty favorable to him?). Again, never said that MJ didn't have advantages compared to his peers, but this idea penalizing him for it seems like trying to engineer a problem, and I'm gonna have to echo One_And_Done when I say this bizarro world bredwedwine shtick of yours isn't doing as much convincing for me.

Do I think MJ is a defensive anchor like Hakeem or can run an offense like LeBron? Absolutely not. Do I think his scoring prowess, ball protection, decent enough playmaking and defense, and off-ball gravity combined to make him perhaps the GOAT?

I know that would require shifting away from the idea that all-time greatness is determined the most by a team being entirely dependent on you to even function, but...

I mean, look - narratively speaking, MJ is the luckiest superstar of all time and it might not even be close. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone else who enjoyed such a clean, neat, and linear career arc as far as supporting cast goes, and never having health get in the way (since there's strong enough evidence his only significant injury was probably embellished by the Bulls FO). Shaq's pretty close but again, health (and his best #2 being a psychopath). KD was getting there until the Harden trade. Steph Curry, but then because of the other guy I just mentioned his perceived value got some holes poked into it. But I digress. I'm just not sure how much this actually hurts Jordan's value.

OhayoKD · Post #36 » by **OhayoKD** » Fri Nov 29, 2024 2:36 pm

jjgp111292 wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:
jjgp111292 wrote:I just don't see how the Bulls playing well for a a full season without MJ but with a retooled roster and gameplan is some indictment on his value...

Because some people value making teams win, not "let me tear down other more valuable players with a bunch of baseless theory i can't prove or test but fits my priors".

If Jordan was an above average rim-protector, an all-time playmaker, or an all-time floor-general, the Bulls likely do better when he's there and fall more when he's gone. He is none of those things and him not being any of those things makes him worse than if he was. It's quite simple. Impact matters. The totality of what you contribute matters. How that contribution affects teams over large samples matters. PER does not.

That retooled roster and game plan didn't stop the Bulls from starting the season poorly trying to figure out what to do with Pete Myers as his replacement. It also didn't stop their best two players miss games they didn't in 93, and it didn't stop Pippen hating management as well as beefing with one of those additions, someone the Bulls almost traded him for.

But none of that is told when dressing up the beloved per-merchant as a goat candidate.

So in other words...they struggled to find an identity without MJ before figuring out how to play together and exceeded expectations ! Never seen that before. Nowhere have I said that Pippen wasn't a great player and capable of leading a team on his own, just that this idea that MJ was just some rich man's Adrian Dantley eating off his supporting cast seems like logic that only comes from people that can be charitably described as overindexing on heliocentric ball and at worst, trying to push an agenda for a certain guy and the ideology behind him (an ideaology I actually kinda support!).

Inventing strawmen is fun. There is a certain fanbase which has spent the last 3 days spamming threads attacking project and poster credibility because results didn't go the way they wanted them to. All of whom disengaged under the first sign of pushback, excepting one who disengaged soon after when their first attempt at offering substantive was challenged. You want to argue helios impact signals overrate them, then prove it. The #1 in rs and playoff win percentage is Magic Johnson but I'm sure you have a basis for thinking we "overindex" on heliocentic ball beyond cherrypicked team results and arbitrary tresholds ("yes you won the title, but did you win 70 games!!!!!").

MJ's impact signals are pretty hard to measure compared to his peers when you consider the fact that from 86-93 he missed a grand total of 7 games with a supporting cast that improved year-by-year while other guys had less reliable help from season to season (and even then, the tiny sample we have looks...pretty favorable to him?). Again, never said that MJ didn't have advantages compared to his peers, but this idea penalizing him for it seems like trying to engineer a problem, and I'm gonna have to echo One_And_Done when I say this bizarro world bredwedwine shtick of yours isn't doing as much convincing for me.

He's being penalised for not improving his teams anywhere near the degree your opinion him suggests he should. Also not sure what you're getting 7 games from. We have 3 and a half seasons worth of full games concentrated over 4 seasons to form a basis for assessing Jordan's teammates. That's about as good of a sample as possible in the sport and even the most generous assumptions don't put him near "perhaps the goat" in 88 or 92, or on a "perhaps goat trajectory" at any point in his career. Now it's 93 and the poster you're echoing has 180'd from the signals mattering alot to barely mattering at all.

Do I think MJ is a defensive anchor like Hakeem or can run an offense like LeBron? Absolutely not. Do I think his scoring prowess, ball protection, decent enough playmaking and defense, and off-ball gravity combined to make him perhaps the GOAT?

"Do I think John Stockton can score or rebound like Jordan? Absolutely not. Do I think his passing prowess, positionally sound if not flashy defense, and floor game could make him perhaps the best player of the 90s?"

The math checks out for an infinite amount of explanations for how the universe works. Plausibility is not evidence.

Moreover, a significant "off-ball gravity" effect, the common refrain of "aha ceiling raising" has yet to be documented meaningfully anywhere for perimeter players in the 80s/90s. Early returns are not promising:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=114336565#p114336565
Now people are actually looking for it outside of isolated clips. We're still looking. "Perhaps" assuming having a better jumpshot garuntees a big "off-ball gravity" advantage is dubious, particularly when the better jumpshooter is being left undefended from range(you know the area of the court that creates the most spacing?), is a far worse roller (attacks at the rim tend to require defenders to cover more ground than mid-range jumpshots), and is in a scheme where he is trying to avoid extra defensive attention?

Or maybe just eat up whatever people "who were there" tell you on faith. That works too.

I know that would require shifting away from the idea that all-time greatness is determined the most by a team being entirely dependent on you to even function, but...

No, it would require evidence (observations with actual explanatory power). And it will also require you to apply logic consistently. If we shall assume that your team overall relying on the totality of your abilities isn't greatness, why should we assume Jordan's teams relying on him to score makes him a great scorer?

Funny how "your team functioning better with you" is only meaningless when that functioning covers things other than what Jordan's great at.

AEnigma · Post #37 » by **AEnigma** » Fri Nov 29, 2024 2:47 pm

Defensive Player of the Year

1. Hakeem Olajuwon
2. Patrick Ewing
3. Dikembe Mutombo

Not quite 1990 Hakeem, but near enough as a shotblocker, and the mild decline in defensive rebounding is offset to some extent by his continued development into the sport’s second-best ever post defender. Ewing’s Knicks had the historic defence and should be acknowledged accordingly, but when healthy the comparison between the two is not close.

Dikembe takes third narrowly over Robinson and rookie Mourning as the league’s second-best shotblocker and leader of the best defence of the three (without what I would consider an appreciable advantage in support).

Offensive Player of the Year

1. Michael Jordan
2. Charles Barkley
3. Reggie Miller

Jordan had the second highest scoring rate of his career, but Barkley was the regular season star, elevating the Suns to the league’s best offence despite KJ’s extended absence, and he built that lead through the conference finals. In the Finals though, there was no real comparison. Barkley had a chance to match Jordan, but not only could not match him, he could not even match himself from two or three years prior. On the other end, the Suns offered no real resistance to Jordan, so I do not think it is a series on par with his 1988 first round… but hey, he took what they gave him (and then some), and for this award that matters more than an ugly series against a historic defence the round earlier.

Reggie Miller scored dramatically better against the Knicks than Jordan did and has been the primary offensive player for a team with now four consecutive years of top seven offences (top five this year). He is a marginal playmaker who cannot reliably increase his own shot rate when necessary, which caps his overall offensive value, but I have no doubts that the Bulls would still have been regularly winning the conference with Reggie in Jordan’s place.

Player of the Year

5. David Robinson
4. Charles Barkley
3. Patrick Ewing

Not particularly impressed by Robinson’s regular season or postseason. His raw numbers are fine against the Suns, but that is typical for Robinson when faced with a weaker defence, and the Spurs were the only opponent not to push the Suns to elimination (with acknowledgment that had the series been five games long like in the first round, then they would have). Still, the alternatives are Malone, Pippen, or Miller, and none of them are inspiring choices this year. Miller was a great postseason performer, but he was also a second round exit, and without anywhere near the regular season lift and impact of even pre-peak Robinson. Pippen was great against the Knicks, in contrast to last year, but it was the worst regular season of his prime, his other series were nothing special, and he was not shouldering the weight of a franchise quite yet. Malone is the most interesting. We know that in 1994 and 1996 he will outplay peak Robinson head-to-head, and that he will also play much better against Hakeem in 1995 than Robinson does; coupled with his excellent postseason last year, there is plenty to indicate he was simply a superior postseason player to Robinson. Even this year, I struggle to imagine Robinson performing better against the Sonics — but the issue there is that if Malone had been better in the regular season, we would have seen Robinson against the Sonics. In a year where Robinson came closer to a title than Malone did, that is ultimately the key point of demarcation.

Next tier is Barkley and Ewing. As with last year’s Malone/Ewing comparison, Ewing is out a round earlier but is a more serious threat to the Bulls. Barkley had the more accomplished regular season by virtue of maintaining a high win pace without KJ, but I struggle to say what exactly he did better than Jordan head-to-head. The best angle is to retreat to 1991 and again attempt to argue that Barkley had a tougher defensive matchup, which he did… but unlike in 1991, there is no argument that he was a better scorer than Jordan, and that is despite having more offensive support on the Suns than what he had on the 1991 76ers. Why does it matter that Barkley was worse than Jordan? Well, I have an easier time agreeing with the notion that Ewing outplayed Jordan four out of six games and across their series overall than I do with the notion that Barkley outplayed Jordan for even two games. Even just looking at their respective scoring, Ewing outscored Jordan twice in six games, whereas Barkley never did, and Ewing was outright more efficient than both Jordan and Barkley on only slightly lesser volume than Barkley (Jordan of course is a perpetual volume outlier). Barkley would accordingly need to be an all-time playmaker to make up for the monstrous defensive gulf, and he is not. I understand those who prefer Barkley for winning MVP and going to the Finals, but for me this continues to be Ewing.

The top two are at least a tier removed, but Hakeem needs to himself be a tier ahead of Jordan to take first place (my general process for this project has been to reward the more successful player within a tier). I think Hakeem was outright better than Jordan, yet he was a second round exit while Jordan won the title. Thus, the question for me is, am I so impressed by Hakeem’s season and does it so define the year for me such that it merits placement at the top despite missing the Finals while another top three player wins the title.

AEnigma wrote:Re: “1994 was picked as his peak year”
Yes, largely because he pulled off the MVP/DPoY/FinalsMVP triple crown, and when two years are next to each other, people tend to lean toward the one with the larger playoff sample. To the extent we are judging regular seasons, 1993 looks comfortably more impressive: more rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks per possession… fewer turnovers per possession… Marginal decrease in scoring per possession while scoring more efficiently… I routinely criticise the use of box all-in-ones for cross-player analysis, but I think they at least merit use comparing a player to themselves in two adjacent years, and here they universally favour 1993 (PIPM has the advantage as 7.28 to 6.2, BPM has the advantage as 7.5 to 6.8, RAPTOR has the advantage as 7.78 to 6.08, etc.)… 1993 Hakeem is easily in my shortlist of greatest regular seasons ever, and that stretch starting around January where the Rockets finished on a 41-11 tear is a level I personally do not think any other centre reached.
AEnigma wrote:Hakeem was second in MVP voting [in 1993], and I think one could easily argue he lost for primarily superficial reasons. The Suns started the season 21-4, and went 16-2 without KJ; that sets some narratives pretty early. Add in that they earned the league’s top seed, and that Barkley seemed to many to be Team USA’s best player in the summer Olympics (no Hakeem present), and you immediately have a full steam Barkley MVP train without really needing to look at what either player is doing.

Hakeem had a slower start. He and the Rockets were still working to acclimate themselves to Rudy T’s scheme, with similar growing pains to what we saw with the 1990 Bulls. And then like the 1990 Bulls, they as a team, and Hakeem individually, eventually went on a tear. January 8th, they had a losing record at 14-16. Hakeem was averaging 24.7/12.6/2.8/4.1/1.4 on 57.1% efficiency. They then went 41-11 the rest of the way with Hakeem averaging 26.9/13.3/4/4.2/2.1 on 58% efficiency. Unfortunately, those first couple of months count too, and the Barkley narrative had built up far too much of a lead.

Does it quite meet 2009/13 Lebron? Well, maybe not, but basically no one does, so then it is more about who seems to trail least.

Re: 1994 impact
Keeping in mind the former point about Hakeem’s 1993 production exceeding his production in 1994, I think we should not be so quick to judge his “peak” level as a set “+14.5” simply because we lack data from the preceding year. In both years, the Rockets had a +4.5 net rating. In both years, their other four starters were Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell, Robert Horry, and Otis Thorpe. However, in 1994 Thorpe played 550 more minutes and Maxwell played 300 more minutes. Horry and Hakeem were both consistent (but an edge with them too to 1994), and Kenny Smith saw his minutes decrease by 200 but had Sam Cassell replacing Sleepy Floyd and adding an additional 250 minutes of play. Finally, the team added reliable roleplayer Mario Elie as their sixth man, providing 1600 minutes. All of those additions subtracted primarily from the 1993 bench of Winston Garland (-1000), Carl Herrera (-500), Matt Bullard (-600), and Scott Brooks (-300). To me that reads as a notably better team, yet it was one which only slightly outpaced its predecessor, and I see most of that gap being bridged by Hakeem’s decline in production. On/off can be noisy year to year, but in terms of value provided, I feel pretty comfortable marking 1993 Hakeem as a clear step above 1994 Hakeem.

Double Clutch wrote:First of all, the primary argument used against 1993 Hakeem in contrast to the 1994 and especially 1995 versions is that his playoff run wasn't as good. I think everybody would agree 1993 Hakeem had the best regular season so I'm not going to talk about that as much. Most people would say that the 1995 playoff run was his best. We have to understand that playoff performances and especially the numbers are not accumulated in a vacuum. There are certain match ups and circumstances that can potentially dictate how a player performs.

The first thing you have to ask yourself is whether the 1995 playoff run was an aberration in his career? That is clearly not the case as he was generally a terrific playoff performer so it's not a case where you can say Hakeem finally put it all together and had a great playoff run.

The next thing you have to ask yourself is if Hakeem is in a better situation to put up offensive numbers in 1995 than he is in 1993. That to me is definitely true because he has superior back-up PG play with a second year Cassell while the 1993 Rockets had Scott Brooks which is really no comparison, there is even greater floor spacing as Horry spent a good amount of time at the 4 during the playoffs which is an offense at the expense of defense strategy (also benefited from the shortened 3 pt line) and the addition of Drexler brought another dimension to their offense, relieving some pressure off of him and Hakeem does benefit from Drexler’s presence as he’d often space the floor with Drexler either posting up or isolating which is naturally going to help him as he got better looks and Drexler really improved their transition game as well which Hakeem benefited from as the trailer. A secondary scorer is something lacking on the 1993 and 1994 Rockets.

Next, as a I mentioned earlier, match ups can dictate how a player performs. In the first round vs Utah in 1995, Hakeem put up immense numbers vs the Jazz and really played tremendous basketball especially in the two elimination games but when you look a little deep into it, he put up roughly the same numbers vs Utah in the season so he isn't elevating his play to a new level and also consider the fact that Utah's best center, Felton Spencer, was injured for the year. If you compare this series to Hakeem's 1994 WCF vs Utah, you'll notice Felton's presence was definitely missed because once Utah tweaked their defense a bit during the 1994 series (games 3-5), they were able to limit Hakeem's offensive production a bit as Felton was able to push him away from the basket, they started doubling him more often with the forwards so Hakeem would have a bit more difficulty passing out of the double and they'd also pressure the entry pass a bit so Hakeem would naturally have to come out further to receive the ball. These are not issues Hakeem had to deal with in the 1995 series with superior guard play, more of an open game and the lack of Spencer. The next series was against PHX where he was played well and came up clutch in the last three games but overall, I actually think he played a better series vs PHX in 1994. The 1995 San Antonio series is excellent, it's Hakeem's greatest playoff series and really what makes the 1995 playoff run so special but consider he did face single coverage quite a bit and how he had added motivation with Robinson being named the league MVP. This isn't to take away from the series at all by the way, it's easily one of the greatest series I've ever seen. The series vs Orlando is a great all-around performance but something I could definitely see the 1993 and 1994 versions duplicating and even surpassing due to superior defense and activity level.

Now, consider his match ups and circumstances in 1993, neither of which are very favorable so for Hakeem to play that well makes his playoffs that year even more impressive to me. As I mentioned earlier, the guard play is crucial to how a center plays as they're often responsible for getting him the ball. The guard play on the 1993 Rockets is fairly suspect with poor back-ups, the fact that Vernon Maxwell was out until game 4 of the Clipper series with a fractured wrist (he'd play with it for the rest of the playoffs) and this is further magnified by the fact that the two teams they were facing excelled in pressure defenses. There is no accurate way to account for how great a team is at pressuring and trapping the ball besides watching the games but two stats that will give you a rough estimation will be steals and turnovers forced. The 1993 Sonics were the #1 team in the league in both steals and turnovers forced. The 1993 Clippers were the #3 team in the league in steals and #4 in turnovers forced so the point I'm getting at is they were BOTH elite and combined with suspect guard play, this can really have a negative impact on a center's production. Kenny Smith was never great at handling pressure, didn't have the creativity and ball handling skills to evade the traps and made bad passes that could get picked off and Vernon Maxwell had erratic ball handling and also did not protect the ball though I think the fractured wrist probably effected that to some extent. With how predictable the 1993 Rockets' were on offense, what this also meant was that time would be taken off the clock with LAC and SEA pressuring the ball and instead of being aggressive and taking advantage of defense still recovering, they would try to run the offense by dumping it to Hakeem with less time on the clock. Some of the Rocket players would also stand still waiting to receive the pass instead of coming up and meeting the pass which would allow the defense to play the passing lanes and either force a deflection or a steal.

Here's an example from game 5 of the 1993 Rockets vs Clippers series where the pressure defense helped Clippers erase a big 4th quarter deficit:
The way the Los Angeles Clippers see it, the Rockets will go as far in the NBA playoffs as Hakeem Olajuwon can take them and as far as their erratic ballhandling will let them go.

The Clippers tried a variety of defensive measures on Olajuwon, but nothing stopped him for long. But the Clippers did employ a pressing defense at times that forced turnovers and kept the ball from getting into Olajuwon's hands.

The Rockets were in control of Saturday's series-ending playoff game with a 16-point lead early in the fourth quarter. But shortly thereafter Clippers coach Larry Brown called for the press, the Rockets went on one of their turnover binges, and the game turned around.

Los Angeles rallied to lead in the final minute before the Rockets recovered to win 84-80 at The Summit.
In the fourth quarter, the Rockets had 11 turnovers and were outscored 24-17.

Clippers guard Lester Conner, who played the final 11 minutes of the game, said: "We had to make something happen to try to scramble the game. We got where we wanted to be and had a chance to go up two (with 1:17 to go) with (Ron) Harper's free throw."

Harper, who had scored on a fast-break drive to give the Clippers an 80-79 lead, missed his chance at a three-point play, and the Rockets' Vernon Maxwell followed with a 3-pointer from the right side that put the Rockets ahead for good.

But what does the victory say for the Rockets? They were pushed to the limit to win this series against a .500 team that was looking forward to being dismantled in the offseason.

"They have a chance to go very far," said Conner, a former Rocket. "But Rudy (Tomjanovich) will have to be figuring out what to do against pressure.

"When they play a better team than we are, I don't know if they'll be able to deal with it (the press). We got a couple of victories with it, and we came within one shot of beating them today. They are beatable."

Forward Kenny Norman said: "I don't think the best team won, but that Olajuwon is unbelievable. I didn't realize he was that good."

Asked if Olajuwon deserves to be the league's Most Valuable Player, Norman said: "I said (Charles) Barkley all year, but I'm wondering now. That man (Olajuwon) is Superman."

Norman, who is not usually an outside shooter, was 2-for-2 on 3-point shots and scored 14 points.

Although he did not play the final 11 minutes of the game, he had no complaints because "Lester and the small lineup got us back in the game."

But there was no stopping the Rockets' big man, Olajuwon, who scored 31 points for the day and went 3-for-4 from the floor in the fourth quarter.

Stanley Roberts, who took turns with Danny Manning trying to guard Olajuwon, said: "He's going to do what it takes to win. There really is no stopping him."

Said Manning: "Hakeem had a great year and a great series. I think he will even play better as the playoffs move on. Defensively, I never was really able to stop him, but then again, there are not many players that have."

- Chron

Clippers were also focused on doubling Hakeem at all times and didn't play him straight up from my memory although I don't count plays where Hakeem makes his move early such as the baseline spin off the catch, turnaround jumper where he can evade the double team etc. Of course, Seattle would take this to another level than the Clippers as they had superior defensive personnel as well as a defensive mastermind in Bob Kloppenburg to create defensive schemes to negate Hakeem's impact as much as possible. Hakeem's numbers in the Seattle series may not stand out but he created a lot of opportunities because how much attention he received. They would also make adjustments throughout the series such as switching defenders, changing the identities of the double teamer, coming from different angles, fronting him and pressuring the ball handler to make it harder for the lob pass and a lot of times they could get away with having a defender on the front and on the back. Seattle would also try to run more and bait Houston into a running game where they tended to forget about Hakeem and the guards tended to chuck up more shots so this was also smart on Seattle's behalf. An example of this below from game 1 of this series:
Lacking alternatives, Karl went to a small lineup, and watched his club run up a 91-77 lead that proved to be too much to overcome with 7:07 remaining in a defensive matchup.

"That's sometimes how good coaches are made," Karl conceded.

Well, looky here. Like spying a dollar bill on the sidewalk, the Sonics may have stumbled across yet another look to toss at Olajuwon, the Rockets' superstar center. Call it the no-look.

Because, in this scheme, Olajuwon doesn't get to look at the ball.

With the smaller unit able to force the tempo, the Sonics ripped off nine unanswered points - the first five from Johnson, the last four from Pierce. The Sonics, as everybody knows, are at their best when things get crazy. The Rockets, on the other hand, have Olajuwon, so playing crazy usually is just plain insane.

"They're kind of an in-between team," Kloppenburg said. "They'll run, if they get the opportunities. But they mostly want the power game."

But there's nothing powerful about turnovers and wild three-pointers, which the Rockets produced when induced into an up-and-down game.

"If they're playing that way," said Johnson, who scored the Sonics' first 11 points of the fourth quarter and finished with 20, "they tend, at times, to forget about Hakeem."

Bingo.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930511&slug=1700685" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hakeem's production when you consider these two aspects is great because I believe you shouldn't penalize a big man if his perimeter players can't get him the ball or if they're being baited into an up and down game and seduced into playing into the opponent's hands although this does show an inherit limitation in a big man's game due to their inability to create offense from the get-go. The above issues are something Hakeem didn't come across in the 1994 or 1995 playoffs with the exception of the 1994 finals to a certain extent. Hakeem also didn't receive much support early on in this series; I remember Hubie Brown stating how he felt Hakeem was essentially playing 1 on 5 in the first two games at Seattle. In general, I think 1993 Hakeem got doubled a bit more than 1994 and especially 1995 Hakeem due to the strategies employed by the teams they faced as well as superior spacing on the 1995 team which can make your box score stats look weaker.

Now, when I compare 1993 Hakeem to 1994 Hakeem, I really don't see any improvements in the latter version mainly because he didn't get to work much on his game in the 1993 off-season as he had to get surgery on his finger (right hand) although he did work on his off-hand as a result. Meanwhile, 1993 Hakeem is very clearly a superior rebounder which can be backed up by the numbers, a tad quicker which I think was noticeable in his lateral movement and rotations and I also thought he had a bit more stamina preventing him from getting worn down late in games which happened in the 1994 playoffs (game 4 vs Portland, finals vs the Knicks etc). He did work on his strength and stamina in the 1994 off-season. I don't see a good reason why anybody should side with 1994 Hakeem as his peak year unless you're caught up in the MVP and championship narrative which you shouldn't be. His playoff run might be a little better but like I said, the circumstances and match ups definitely influence that. To me, he was pretty clearly the MVP in 1993 by the way and the 1994 Rockets as a team are a little better than the 1993 version due to the addition of Sam Cassell who was a solid back up PG, Horry improving as a player specifically in regards to his shooting and the addition of another solid defender and shooter in Mario Elie. I'm not even touching on the fact that the 1993 Rockets had a whole bunch of calls go against them in game 7 vs Seattle as well as a tip-in at the buzzer by David Robinson to force OT in the last game of the season which shouldn't have counted as it was late and that would've given Houston home court in the Seattle series (home team won every game).

When I compare 1993 Hakeem to 1995 Hakeem, I try to compare and weigh to what extent the improvement in certain skills translates to impact. 1993 Hakeem has a rather clear edge in athleticism especially in regards to quickness and leaping ability, offensive rebounding (more easier baskets), defensive rebounding, shot FTs a little better (very minor point though), transition defense, mobility on the perimeter, PnR defense and rim protection (thought he challenged more shots in the lane). His perimeter/PnR/transition defense is incredible in that series vs Seattle, just awe-inspiring to watch especially when you consider that Seattle had a well-balanced attack with multiple offensive threats all over the floor.

I noticed 1995 Hakeem took more of an offensive approach; perhaps, because they realized the team's strength clearly lied on the offensive end and he shifted his focus towards that side of the court and maybe conserved some energy on defense. His activity level in terms of challenging shots and crashing the boards had declined and Houston's PnR defense was exploited on occasion during the 1995 playoffs (games 3 and 4 vs SA come to mind) though I wouldn't attribute that to Hakeem but more so the strategy Houston chose to roll with in defending the play. I did notice he was more conscious of the roll man when he was guarding Shaq and Robinson which is understandable from a strategic standpoint and the main reason it was exploited was due to the guards often getting picked off and weakside help didn't come quick enough. But I also noticed that in general, Hakeem didn't show hard as much or as consistently as he did in the past and laid back on the play. Maybe this was due to the fact they lacked rebounding due to the Drexler/Thorpe trade but Hakeem's defensive rebounding numbers actually declined after the trade. The decrease in activity level is something you can argue in favor of 1993 Hakeem since he had better stamina so he didn't have to conserve energy as much. As for improvements, I would say 1995 Hakeem is a bit better at setting screens so his PnR and PnP game was better as a result and he also improved at slipping screens as well, he was more effective facing up and putting the ball on the floor, bit better footwork that along with his instincts allowed him to create more separation and more stuff on the fly, he perhaps had a bit more range to stretch the floor so his offensive portability is a little better although how much of this is due to simply having the room to showcase his stuff more often due to the improvement in Houston's spacing, facing less defensive attention and their guards were better at penetrating and creating (no Drexler and Cassell in 1993)? I think it definitely plays a part so while this does show Hakeem's ability to adjust with the system, you can perhaps say 1995 Hakeem doesn't have as much of an edge in these areas as you initially think since 1993 Hakeem wasn't used this way due to the make up of the team. With that said, his assistant coach (Carroll Dawson) did talk about how he added range to his jumper and there is a visible improvement in his pick setting in 1995. Some of it may have to do with the presence of Cassell as him and Sam had decent synergy on the PnR.

I'm really impressed by Hakeem's all around dominance in 1993 and while I did commend his clutch play in 1995, 1993 Hakeem was extremely clutch as well. The game 5 vs Clippers and the game 7 vs Seattle are two terrific elimination game performances.

To briefly indulge into Hakeem and the Rockets' regular season, they really became a great team after a few team meetings in January 1993 encouraging more unselfish and team basketball and Hakeem's leadership played a part in that. After a subpar 14-16 start, they went 41-11 to finish the season and Hakeem's numbers in that 52 gm stretch are really tremendous all-around: 26.9 ppg/13.3 rpg/4.0 apg/2.1 spg/4.2 bpg/53.0 FG%/79.4 FT%. I'm not overly impressed by the 1993 Rockets roster either partly for some the reasons that have been stated above such as their inability to handle pressure defenses along with their guard play in general.

I think Hakeem's decision making really improved this year which he alluded to in his HOF speech when he said Rudy T gave him more room to freelance which made him more conscious of his decisions and of course Rudy had designed the offense around him to maximize his talents. Hakeem also said the 1992 off-season was the first time he really worked on his game (shooting, spin moves, conditioning, passing) and the improvements in 1993 are rather obvious. It's why 1993 is his peak to me, he put it all together and his dominance on offense and defense overlapped to a greater extent than he did in 1994 and 1995 while having all the leadership, clutch play and mental game down.

fatal9 wrote:In his prime he was literally the perfect player to build around. Monster defender who guaranteed you a top defense in the league, 30 points a night, great decision making and passing ability that the ENTIRE offense was built around (no one on Houston was good at creating their own shot, they depended so much Hakeem's presence), unstoppable one on one scoring against any one (most double teamed big I've seen after Shaq), high bball IQ and quick decision making (this is what made him go to the next level in '93, his decision making became amazing, most centers don't act quick enough), not a liability in crunch time like many other centers, ability to outplay anyone put in front of him and an absolute ASSASSIN in big games (MJ like nerves and killer instinct, the man would just not go away).

Only very few superstars can consistently make shots over the defense while maintaining a high level of efficiency, Hakeem was one of them (Jordan, Kobe two other that stick out, though Kobe's ego takes a bit too far with this). Depending on the situation, how set the defense is, what the time on the clock is, it isn’t exactly a bad thing to have an extraordinary shot maker on your team and overall, well placed aggression as a scorer places tremendous pressure on the defense. With many centers and low post players, you can devise strategies to really limit their touches and get the ball out of their hands because they have less floor space to work with, and limited spots to start their offense from. This was less of a problem for Hakeem, because he was better at making adjustments to you, than you were to him (on both ends). So if he's being double teamed, he can step outside and spot up for midrange jumpers (or use his quickness to evade doubles altogether). He is also a more dynamic playmaker in the post, he doesn't necessarily have to wait for a double team to create a play like most centers and he can also attack facing up from the perimeter. Of course there’s a fine balance, but it didn't come at the expense of his teammates or his own efficiency, the Rockets role players thrived with Hakeem. Hakeem's offensive decision making was very good and he did use the defensive attention the right way to create countless looks for his teammates, that was the foundation of their entire half court offense, and Hakeem was lauded for how well he synchronized his game with rest of the team.

Okay, he's not Vlade or Sabonis or Walton, and Shaq probably is a bit better at passing, but to call him subpar? especially as a center? SUB-PAR? Against a focused/elite team defense, like the kind we've already seen him perform well against in the playoffs? Somehow his offensive decision making, which is excellent, has been turned into a weakness. If I don't have a star guard to give my offense the kind of dynamic playmaking that is important in the playoffs (ie. team is filled with role players/shooters instead of all-star guards), I would comfortably take Hakeem to lead my offense in the playoffs over Shaq. His dynamic form of playmaking is much more valuable and harder to plan around than the traditional, "wait for a double team" strategy (where the defense can make adjustments to control exactly when they double, who they double off and where they double from).

This is what often makes big men not so good solo offensive/volume scoring anchors in playoffs, their game is a lot more rigid, they can have problems syncing high volume scoring with keeping rest of the team involved and engaged. You just don't get big men averaging close to 5 apg while scoring 30+ ppg, they are just not dynamic enough as playmakers. Dude consistently averaged more apg in a volume scoring role than any other center, and somehow he's been turned into a subpar passer. '93-'95 Hakeem averaged more assists than '00-02 Shaq and turned the ball over less, has lower TO/TO% and higher ast/ast% numbers over their entire playoff career when the "defense is focused". Rockets even used to run a play with Otis Thorpe and Hakeem, where Hakeem would make a lob post entry feed to OT over the defense, rarely see that kind of a play run with a center making the feed. You can see him striking shooters all game, finding players who are cutting, consistently made the right pass in crunchtime to win huge playoff games. Hakeem was also a master at using a single dribble to collapse a defense, people need to take a note of this when they watch him play, one well used dribble and he creates a play on call. He might not be the GOAT passing big man, but to be critical of his passing and ability to read the defense, two things that are actually major strengths for his position, doesn't make much sense at all.

I think in a setting where there's no all-star guard to give your offense added variability, Hakeem is actually the better option to have in the playoffs. Also while efficiency and boxscore stats are usually used to point out Shaq's superiority, in the playoffs, Hakeem from '86-'95 (102 games) actually had a better TS% and O-Rating than Shaq did from '95-'04 (115 games), and higher scoring per 36. A lot of Shaq's regular season boxscore advantage over Hakeem basically disappears in the playoffs. Not that boxscore should matter that much anyways, but understandably it's important data for some.

Even if he's being triple teamed all game, at his peak he was better at affecting the game defensively and with his overall floor activity. Some of Hakeem's most dominant playoff games are ones where he didn't even break 25 points, instead he dominated in every way possible, especially defensively, altering countless shots, both in the paint and on the perimeter, forcing turnovers and disrupting plays with his floor activity, and igniting many fast breaks with his defense (some games that come to mind, G3, G4, and G7 vs. Sonics in '93, close out game vs. Jazz in '94 among others). Like this is a game where Hakeem had 22 points on less than 50% shooting , but his dominance is never in question.

Watch on YouTube

Just because I really enjoy talking about Hakeem's defense, I'll write down some things that made him such a complete and impactful defender in my mind.

His post defense. He makes a swipe at the ball when the guy in the post is receiving it, which would be classified as "gamble defense" for most centers, but due to his quick feet, he recovers right away and then plays you straight up. This is such a nuisance for guys in the post because there's no time to gather yourself and get into your move, dude is ALWAYS pressuring you, on the post entry pass, then when you make your move he is reacting quickly with his feet to take that away, his quick hands are taking away the ball if you expose it and then uses his impeccable timing to contest your shot. Phenomenal defensive footwork, look at how much trouble Ewing had against him in the post because of this. Even when you see him against someone so physically dominant as a Shaq, he could still make a player like him have inefficient offensive games. No one is going to contain Shaq one on one or when he has position on you…he will score and he did against Hakeem. But in that series Hakeem used his quick feet (to get in position and draw offensive fouls) and hands to make Shaq very turnover prone (something that is NEVER mentioned when people post their respective ppg/FG% stats, Shaq averaged 5.3 TOs, more than he has in any playoff series of his career). His savviness depending on the opponent is an underrated part of his overall post defense. I read a post (bastillon’s I think) a while ago where performances of opposing centers were summed up and against Hakeem they saw the biggest drop (yes, aware that centers don't play each other straight up over a full game, but it's something to consider).

His pick and roll defense is KG like, except he has even quicker feet. Best I've seen at shutting down the most effective offensive play in basketball for most teams (Duncan's pick and roll D is a joke in comparison). As Kenny mentions in that open court clip, when you put into words what he's doing when defending the pick and roll, it sounds ridiculous, it IS ridiculous, but...he was actually doing it. This is of course one play and it's an example of how ridiculous his pick and roll and overall floor coverage was:

Watch on YouTube

This is going to annoy some people because I’m highlighting one play (and I get why it would) but lets look at what he’s doing for a second here. Dude went out to the three point line to cover the pick and roll, made a clean swipe at the ball to pressure the guard (often stripped them like this), then recovers to shadow the guard and stays between him and the basket to intimidate him out of a layup, then gets in the paint and makes a shot block at the rim off the pass to a guy who thinks he's open, all while keeping the ball in play for a fast break opportunity. And the thing is, he did stuff like this in every game, and if you need to be convinced of that, watch his playoff games from ’93 and ’94. His pick and roll coverage from any spot on the floor was deadly, had the ability to defend basically every option that develops from it. Which other big man did it better?

His overall floor defense. No such thing as a “mismatch” exists if Hakeem was switched on to you, doesn’t matter if you’re a forward or a guard, he had the feet to stay in front of you. In the '93 series vs. Sonics who had all sorts of perimeter scorers, watch how well he stays in front of them. He clears up his teammates (and own) mistakes because his recovery defense and floor coverage is amazing. His instincts too, he's great at seeing offensive plays develop. I was watching the Jazz series a while ago, all these cute little plays those guys ran like pindowns for Malone and backscreens and what not, Hakeem would come in and just take that away from them (averaged 2.6 steals, 4.6 blks partly because of how he could read what they wanted). He would come up from somewhere above the foul line (illegal defense restrictions of the time) and come out of nowhere to take away those easy Malone baskets when he is pinning down the forwards (in game 5 Snapper Jones remarks “the problem for Karl Malone is he can’t find Hakeem Olajuwon”). He made so many game winning (and even championship winning) plays at the end of games when teams were running their bread and butter plays, because he was good at reading them (who does that remind you of?). It was that sort of cerebral ability to read his opposition which he combined with everything else he did (you can definitely argue he maybe didn't have in his younger years), that made his defensive impact so huge. Hubie Brown made a great remark about Hakeem regarding his understanding of the game given how late he learned it, "he has a PhD in basketball, but where did he get it?"

Then he could absolutely lock down the paint with his shot blocking and altering. King of surprise weak side blocks, could get his own man, challenge guards and make them have to shoot low percentage floaters in the lane. His timing, reflexes and the quickness of his jump are unparalleled at his position. Not many, if any shot blockers you can call better, and usually he kept the ball in play to trigger fast breaks.

His activity. If you watch playoff games from his prime, announcers are always asking "does this guy ever get tired?" He would wear down his opponent on offense and then not let up at all on defense. Nightmare matchup for opposing Cs because of this and it helped him win one on one matchups. His activity and stamina was on another level to everyone else on the court (prime MJ like, where the player makes you feel like he is "everywhere" and involved in every big play on both ends). Does such a great job of getting back on defense and covering people in transition too, the motor is always running.

His team stats. Since he came into the league, his team was top 5 in defense 8 of out 10 years. And when he was out, his teams generally saw a big decline. If that's your thing, ElGee’s post earlier in the thread sums it up.
If you want to hear what coaches and players who played against him or watched him thought of his defensive skills, hit up google and look at the awe they are in with how he is able to impact the game defensively. It’s a little bit of a shame that the ’95 run is his defining GOAT moment for a lot of people, because they miss out the better defense he is playing in previous years (not to say he wasn’t still among the best in ’95, but overall activity/rebounding wise he had taken a step back from the standard he set in earlier years).

Back to back defensive player of the years when Ewing was anchoring historical defenses, Mutombo was leading the league in blocks and D-Rob was his usual phenomenal self. Elevating him above KG and Duncan isn’t an insult to those guys, he could just do more than them, it's obvious to me from watching them play, kind of like KG’s overall floor defense with Timmy’s paint defense and shot blocking. Imagine everything you want out of a big man defensively and Hakeem basically gave that to you. You think Timmy and KG are better? Fine, I strongly disagree, but everyone has their opinion. But no need to act like Hakeem doesn’t warrant his position as the 2nd defensive GOAT. Based on watching him play, his skills, his well roundedness, his numbers, his team impact, opinion of people around the game, anyway you slice it, dude deserves the praise he gets on defense. There have been great big men who did some of the things I mentioned (Duncan/KG), some who did most of the things I mentioned (D-Rob), but did anyone do ALL of them at the level Hakeem did?

With such a high importance that good teams place on exploiting matchup weaknesses in the PS, a guy like Hakeem who a) shores up so many things for a team (from a reliable volume scorer, playmaking hub, to pick and roll d and overall floor defense, to shot blocking, etc etc, literally all major facets of the game), and b) is so good at making adjustments to his opponent, both in his individual matchup and against team strategies, peak Hakeem is the ultimate matchup ace to have heading into a playoff series. Even if you have LeBron or Jordan, your interior defense and rebounding might be getting killed (like it was for the Heat this year), even if you have Shaq, your pick and roll defense might be getting killed (among other things), with Hakeem, his impact is so versatile and expansive that he takes away a lot of the opponents' potential matchup advantages while presenting a set of his own to them.

If you value primes and playoff performance highly (two most important things for me personally), he has a very good case for top 5. You need to watch him play, need to see the situations he confronted, how he played on a game by game basis, how immensely valuable he was to his teams. The reason why many people think so highly of him because at his peak, he left you nothing to criticize because he did everything, won every big game, performed HUGE on the biggest stage, faced stiff competition and outplayed everyone. Did it like MJ did from ’91-’93, played in a way that left no doubt in anyone's mind. Now people are acting like putting Hakeem in the highest of highest leagues is revisionist history or overrating him, but take a closer look, the man played THAT well.

2. Michael Jordan
1. Hakeem Olajuwon

Djoker · Post #38 » by **Djoker** » Fri Nov 29, 2024 3:36 pm

The 1994 Bulls were pretty significantly worse than the 1993 Bulls.

1993 Bulls - 6.19 SRS --> 58.3 Pythagorean Wins (in 78 games with Jordan - 7.21 SRS --> 60.7 Pythagorean Wins)
1994 Bulls - 2.87 SRS --> 49.5 Pythagorean Wins

So looking at SRS which is a much better predictor of team quality than W-L record, the 1994 Bulls are about 10 wins worse.

Compared to the Knicks in the PS:

1993 Bulls +4.7 MOV (series won in 6)
1994 Bulls +1.2 MOV (series lost in 7)

The no calls in Game 5 get a lot of publicity but the Kukoc game-winner in Game 3 is glossed over. If Toni misses that shot, the Bulls are down 0-3 in the series and possibly get swept.

Anyways the difference in MOV in the PS against the same opponent also shows a significantly worse team.

Then there are other factors to consider:
- the 1993 Bulls coasted in the RS; after two straight title runs and the Olympics, the team was just waiting for the PS
- both Pippen and Grant had down years in 1993 and very strong bounce back years in 1994
- the 1994 Bulls improved the depth of the team pretty significantly adding Kukoc, Kerr and a 27 games of Longley; these additions can be worth 3-5 wins and easily make up for Pippen and Grant missing a few more games than in 1993
- the 1993 Bulls actually won a title and beat the other best team in the league (Phoenix) while the 1994 Bulls lost in the 2nd round to a team that didn't win the title
- the 1993 Bulls are by far the worst team of all the championship Bulls teams with Jordan in both the RS and PS; if we look at the complete WOWY record of the championship Bulls, Jordan is worth about 15 wins on average which doesn't seem earth-shattering until you realize that the team with him played at a 65-win pace; elevating a 50-win roster by 15 wins is easily more impressive than elevating a say 30-win roster by 20 wins

Also want to say a bit about the 1993 Suns. With KJ in the lineup, they had a +7.70 SRS which is 61.9 Pythagorean Wins. And even when he played, he wasn't exactly healthy, putting up by far the worst RS and PS statistically in his prime. Barkley actually looks very impressive here (his MVP is fully deserved too IMO) especially considering what he did against Seattle in the PS and his good series against the Bulls, probably the best any opponent played against Chicago offensively during the first threepeat. If KJ was his usual 100% self and Ceballos could play, the Suns likely win it all. They almost did as is.

Hakeem's Rockets also didn't have a bad roster by a long shot. Thorpe made an all-star game the previous season and deservedly so. Horry, Maxwell, Kenny... these guys all provided great spacing with their shooting. Just because a team doesn't have a lot of big names doesn't mean it was terrible. Using tiny WOWY off samples of 5-10 games to paint supporting casts as 20-win worthy or whatever is just pure silliness. That Houston team was good. And with Hakeem who played all 82 games they were nothing special with 3.57 SRS which is 51.4 Pythagorean Wins. They were a good 10 expected wins worse than the Bulls and Suns so while he did have a worse cast, he also had far worse results.

Ewing led a team of role players like Hakeem but to a much better outcome in both the RS and PS. 5.87 SRS which works out to 57.5 PW and then played the champs very well. Individually too, I don't think Ewing had a much if any worse PS than Hakeem did.

The more I microanalyze this, the less impressed I am with Hakeem to be honest.

jjgp111292 · Post #39 » by **jjgp111292** » Fri Nov 29, 2024 3:52 pm

OhayoKD wrote:
jjgp111292 wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:Because some people value making teams win, not "let me tear down other more valuable players with a bunch of baseless theory i can't prove or test but fits my priors".

If Jordan was an above average rim-protector, an all-time playmaker, or an all-time floor-general, the Bulls likely do better when he's there and fall more when he's gone. He is none of those things and him not being any of those things makes him worse than if he was. It's quite simple. Impact matters. The totality of what you contribute matters. How that contribution affects teams over large samples matters. PER does not.

That retooled roster and game plan didn't stop the Bulls from starting the season poorly trying to figure out what to do with Pete Myers as his replacement. It also didn't stop their best two players miss games they didn't in 93, and it didn't stop Pippen hating management as well as beefing with one of those additions, someone the Bulls almost traded him for.

But none of that is told when dressing up the beloved per-merchant as a goat candidate.

So in other words...they struggled to find an identity without MJ before figuring out how to play together and exceeded expectations ! Never seen that before. Nowhere have I said that Pippen wasn't a great player and capable of leading a team on his own, just that this idea that MJ was just some rich man's Adrian Dantley eating off his supporting cast seems like logic that only comes from people that can be charitably described as overindexing on heliocentric ball and at worst, trying to push an agenda for a certain guy and the ideology behind him (an ideaology I actually kinda support!).

Inventing strawmen is fun. There is a certain fanbase which has spent the last 3 days spamming threads attacking project and poster credibility because results didn't go the way they wanted them to. All of whom disengaged under the first sign of pushback, excepting one who disengaged soon after when their first attempt at offering substantive was challenged. You want to argue helios impact signals overrate them, then prove it. The #1 in rs and playoff win percentage is Magic Johnson but I'm sure you have a basis for thinking we "overindex" on heliocentic ball beyond cherrypicked team results and arbitrary tresholds ("yes you won the title, but did you win 70 games!!!!!").

And wouldn't you know, I wouldn't balk at anyone who would put Magic over Jordan! You have me confused with other people.

MJ's impact signals are pretty hard to measure compared to his peers when you consider the fact that from 86-93 he missed a grand total of 7 games with a supporting cast that improved year-by-year while other guys had less reliable help from season to season (and even then, the tiny sample we have looks...pretty favorable to him?). Again, never said that MJ didn't have advantages compared to his peers, but this idea penalizing him for it seems like trying to engineer a problem, and I'm gonna have to echo One_And_Done when I say this bizarro world bredwedwine shtick of yours isn't doing as much convincing for me.

He's being penalised for not improving his teams anywhere near the degree your opinion him suggests he should. Also not sure what you're getting 7 games from. We have 3 and a half seasons worth of full games concentrated over 4 seasons to form a basis for assessing Jordan's teammates. That's about as good of a sample as possible in the sport and even the most generous assumptions don't put him near "perhaps the goat" in 88 or 92, or on a "perhaps goat trajectory" at any point in his career. Now it's 93 and the poster you're echoing has 180'd from the signals mattering alot to barely mattering at all.

I'm assuming the other season is '86? They go from a -4 in MJ-less games that season to +.9 in '87...not spectacular and that version of MJ is plenty flawed as it were, and I'm sure you credit even their improvement more to Charles Oakley's defense. Then after that we have 94 which I still say is dubious...you pointed out that +4 MJs lift for them in 95 wasn't that great and like...yeah, my entire point was even a crappy version of MJ was able to produce a pretty decent lift in the team's play just through offensive value. And again, given the roster differences I pointed out from the first-three-peat Bulls supporting cast, wouldn't 96 be a more apt comparison to the 93/94 roster? Obviously Rodman/Harper vs. Horace/Armstrong is a worthwhile debate and I'd lean towards the former given that again, league was tilting towards defense, but even if you want to hedge Jordan's impact, +13.4 vs. +3.3...I mean I ain't no mathemtician but, y'know that looks like a healthy Jordan providing a pretty big lift. And the 97 Bulls even with Rodman among others missing significant time was still a +12

Do I think MJ is a defensive anchor like Hakeem or can run an offense like LeBron? Absolutely not. Do I think his scoring prowess, ball protection, decent enough playmaking and defense, and off-ball gravity combined to make him perhaps the GOAT?

"Do I think John Stockton can score or rebound like Jordan? Absolutely not. Do I think his passing prowess, positionally sound if not flashy defense, and floor game could make him perhaps the best player of the 90s?"

The math checks out for an infinite amount of explanations for how the universe works. Plausibility is not evidence.

???????????????

Moreover, a significant "off-ball gravity" effect, the common refrain of "aha ceiling raising" has yet to be documented meaningfully anywhere for perimeter players in the 80s/90s. Early returns are not promising:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=114336565#p114336565
Now people are actually looking for it outside of isolated clips. We're still looking. "Perhaps" assuming having a better jumpshot garuntees a big "off-ball gravity" advantage is dubious, particularly when the better jumpshooter is being left undefended from range(you know the area of the court that creates the most spacing?), is a far worse roller (attacks at the rim tend to require defenders to cover more ground than mid-range jumpshots), and is in a scheme where he is trying to avoid extra defensive attention?

Or maybe just eat up whatever people "who were there" tell you on faith. That works too.

As others in that same thread pointed out, I'm not sure this is saying what you want it to say when the game was substantially different in the 80s/90s and more tilted towards iso-ball.

I know that would require shifting away from the idea that all-time greatness is determined the most by a team being entirely dependent on you to even function, but...

No, it would require evidence (observations with actual explanatory power). And it will also require you to apply logic consistently. If we shall assume that your team overall relying on the totality of your abilities isn't greatness, why should we assume Jordan's teams relying on him to score makes him a great scorer?

Funny how "your team functioning better with you" is only meaningless when that functioning covers things other than what Jordan's great at.

Well it's not a 1-size fits all comparison. A balanced team is far more likely to get itself together to some extent with missing pieces than a team that leans so much on one guy, to the point where value becomes a chicken and egg scenario even though the chicken is definitely more important. I mean hell, we see that with the 98 Bulls still being a +5.6 in the 36 games without Pippen even with MJ playing hurt in the first month of the season.

OhayoKD · Post #40 » by **OhayoKD** » Fri Nov 29, 2024 4:10 pm

Djoker wrote:The 1994 Bulls were pretty significantly worse than the 1993 Bulls.

1993 Bulls - 6.19 SRS --> 58.3 Pythagorean Wins (in 78 games with Jordan - 7.21 SRS --> 60.7 Pythagorean Wins)
1994 Bulls - 2.87 SRS --> 49.5 Pythagorean Wins

So looking at SRS which is a much better predictor of team quality than W-L record, the 1994 Bulls are about 10 wins worse.

And they were 55 pythagorean wins with Pippen, curious how health only mattered for the 93 Bulls. A barely POY-worthy signal from a blatantly uneven process. Great start.

Compared to the Knicks in the PS:

1993 Bulls +4.7 MOV (series won in 6)
1994 Bulls +1.2 MOV (series lost in 7)

Yeah, really screams "this is a GOAT tier playoff run from the clear goat peak perimiter player".

The no calls in Game 5 get a lot of publicity but the Kukoc game-winner in Game 3 is glossed over. If Toni misses that shot, the Bulls are down 0-3 in the series and possibly get swept.

No. If Toni misses the shot the game would have gone to overtime. A few plays would have also swung game 1 and 2 which the Knicks won despite the Bulls leading entering the 4th. Perhaps if Pippen isn't sent to the bench at the end of the third quarter of game 7, Ewing doesn't get a groove and the Bulls win anyway.

Hypotheticals are fun aren't they.

Then there are other factors to consider:
- the 1993 Bulls coasted in the RS; after two straight title runs and the Olympics, the team was just waiting for the PS

Ah, but after three straight title-runs, a superstar who hated his front-office, and the acqusition of a key role player said superstar also hated(they tried to trade him for that guy earlier), the 1994 Bulls were. None of that was worth mentioning though

team of all the championship Bulls teams with Jordan in both the RS and PS; if we look at the complete WOWY record of the championship Bulls, Jordan is worth about 15 wins on average which doesn't seem earth-shattering until you realize that the team with him played at a 65-win pace; elevating a 50-win roster by 15 wins is easily more impressive than elevating a say 30-win roster by 20 wins

Show your work please.

Hakeem's Rockets also didn't have a bad roster by a long shot. Thorpe made an all-star game the previous season and deservedly so. Horry, Maxwell, Kenny... these guys all provided great spacing with their shooting.

Yes, Otis Thorpe
https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/1993-houston-rockets-record-without-otis-thorpe

The Houston Rockets had a record of 7-3 without Otis Thorpe in 1992-93.

A real number 2.

Just because a team doesn't have a lot of big names doesn't mean it was terrible. Using tiny WOWY off samples of 5-10 games to paint supporting casts as 20-win worthy or whatever is just pure silliness. That Houston team was good.

Using direct evidence is terrible. Using the reputation of players is also terrible (unless it's time to discredit the actual best perimiter player ever). But just going by how good Djoker tells us the team is?

Now that's real basketball analysis. Just like pretending the Bulls were 3 points down in game 3 as opposed to 2.