Retro POY '95-96 (Voting Complete)

[lorak]

I don’t understand. We evaluate what actually happened, at what level player played or what? Because I agree that Robinson’s productions doped off in playoffs. However that don’t change fact that he still played at very high level and in some strange way some people penalize him for that. I really don’t understand that logic.

Likewise, I don't understand how you can give anybody credit despite their production dropping, even to a still impressive level, while getting outplayed in a playoff defeat.

Kobe Bryant puts up a 25 spot in tonight's game, that's a career high for a decent number of players in the league. For him, that's a below-average game. His team loses, and I simply don't understand how he shouldn't be criticized for that.

Something like “you should do more”?
I understand that point but I don’t agree with it. Sure, we could criticize Robinson or Kobe in that way (“do more”), but that don’t change the fact that they still played at higher level than most players.

[Gongxi]

But if he's still playing elite basketball, what's the difference?

I already explained that.

You don't criticize Kobe Bryant if he drops 25 to prop up Derek Fisher who got you 9. That's handicapping players. If that's how this thing is gonna go, Jordan shouldn't be first, because we're "used to him playing so well". In that way, it would be a lot like the MVP voting anyway.

[semi-sentient]

Did I miss a "Why don't we just rank them by PER and save time?" post by semi-sentient? If so, why not just rank the best player(s) on the best teams and assume that somehow they actually played the best the whole year through? That's fast, too.

Yeah, I removed it. Didn't feel like turning this into a big argument about the validity of using certain metrics over others.

Everyone here has had questionable votes (and changes their criteria slightly) from time to time, so it's just best to accept that and move on.

[kaima]

I find it hard to believe that Robinson is seen as having the better season, overall, when in this case, as in 95 and 94, his inability not to only match his own numbers but, further, match the other team's post threat is what caused his team to lose.

When 50% of your games in a series consist of scoring output no better than 17 points per (and two of those games, in a row, have you limping to 11), and you come in with an average of 25, then you've got a lot of explaining to do.

The problem with Robinson is that, truly, unlike just about any other superstar I've seen debated, his defenders largely want his numbers to be analyzed in some sort of advanced metric vacuum, wherein the fact that Karl Malone or Hakeem literally made a hand-puppet out of him doesn't really count against him.

I've said it many times, but losing is not the issue. Having a bad game is not the issue. Having YEARS of matchups against specific superstars, in do or die situations, where The Admiral truly looked like the mermaid is where the problem begins, and where his season ended every time this problem reared its head.

If someone like Ewing is going to be called out for the 94 Finals, or Shaq for missing a large number of games in 96 (while having a good playoff run), then Robinson's collapse against Malone should be a major issue here.

Anybody who watched those games knows how one-sided that matchup was, and Robinson's dropoff helps to tell that tale. But the games were also down and dirty playoff slugfests, which is often the kind of game that Malone excelled at playing (even if the resultant TS% leads people to believe otherwise, showing, I believe the problem with that metric at least as far as Malone's game), while Robinson couldn't stand it.

Having tough playoff battles where stats go down? Understandable. Having playoff beatdowns where the guy guarding you thoroughly shows you up? A bit different.

Literally, Robinson looked relieved to have that series over with. Not crushed. Images like that always stand out.

[ronnymac2]

Kaima is my hero.

To reiterate what Kaima said, David Robinson failed individually in 1996 (not taking any other years into account, and not comparing him to anybody....not even himself......this is just David Robinson in a vacuum in the year 1996) because offensively, he is content with never forcing his way into games, has no developed low-post game, doesn't have great counter-moves, and doesn't suck the defense into the paint because he never gets close enough to the basket except on drives, where he isn't a good passer off the dribble (not many big men who are face-up bigs are). His effect on the game isn't there offensively.

Robinson's offensive game gets compared to a small foward all the time. Well, that isn't a good thing imo. Why would you want your Center playing like a small foward with no post game who isn't that good of a passer? In all honesty, the player I just described is Kevin Durant on offense, plus offensive rebounding and height and strength, and minus the full-court dribbling skills and 3-point range and willingness to take over and ability to use screens.

Everybody is enamored by Robinson's regular season. Well let's see where he failed. It was against Utah, the 8th best defense in the regular season. That's good- not epic defense (going by the model everybody has put forth as important). Nobody on the Utah Jazz frontline (or team) was worthy of an all-d team. Nobody on Utah got any DPOY votes. David was in his 7th year, was 30 years old, had HCA, and had been further in the playoffs than the second round, so he had all the experience he needed.

What material facets of Robinson's game caused him to underperform individually in the big spot? Yeah, you get the picture......his game. Faults in his game. Major faults in his game that aren't exposed in the regular season. In the 1996 playoffs, they were exposed.




Honestly, Karl Malone is looking like a lock at number two for me. The only guys comparable as players are Robinson, Shaq, and Hakeem.....but Hakeem's defense is only very, very good at this point (not playing like a top two defender ever anymore), see Robinson above, and Shaq missed almost 30 games, which again psychologically just feels way more than 20. Malone got further than all three except Shaq (both played in conference finals).

Yeah, Malone is at number two.

Bastillion- I appreciate Hakeem a lot, and as a Shaq fan, I understand the swarming argument because that is basically the 1996 ECF in a nutshell (though Shaq played really well there, which I'll explain in a later post). But....Hakeem was always getting swarmed and had bad teammates in the late 80's. I know you've seen that youtube game against Seattle where he drops 49-25-6 in 1987. He was getting swarmed all game long, and the 3-point line wasn't even a big thing at the time, and he still produced. He didn't produce here though, which indicates to me that he maybe isn't able to do what he once did offensively on a consistent basis.

[ElGee]

I'm amazed at the love Gary Payton is receiving here. Is it because of the DPOY (which he absolutely should not have won, unless the award is "best defensive player relative to position")?? The first two games of the Finals he struggled mightily. One can still have a good series after that as I've said before, but he basically had 2 good games out of 6. It seems like 2 or 3 games worth of defense on Michael Jordan combined with team success is giving him a huge boost...but neither of those things have much to do with how much he contributed on the basketball court throughout the entire season.

This is not to knock Payton - I have him in my final cut. But I'm just curious as to what the thinking is behind him being as high as 3rd or even 2nd other than what I mentioned above?

[Gongxi]

^^The only thing I can think of is that it's gotta be the team success. Those Sonics win 54 games and he's not getting in anyone's top 5.

[ElGee]

Btw, if you guys have time, youtube has a LOT of basketball from 1996. Which is awesome, because this season is great. There are 10-20 min cuts of games, such as all 4 ECF games.

re: Shaq - he had one monster half (G2), but the Bulls didn't really "swarm" him. They let Longley play him straight up a lot, and when Rodman was on him would try and time help (with one of the wing guys) after Shaq started his dribble. The Bulls also tried to bother the post entry a lot, and seemed fairly content letting him have 15-20 FGA's per night with the appropriate amount of foul shots.

The next focus (or the primary one given what happened in the regular season) was taking away Penny. They put Pippen on him primarily, and after Penny went off in G1, Pippen basically clamped him up for the rest of the series. Between memory and some youtube scouting, Pip made some adjustments, particularly in shutting off drives and how they handled screening action, and that not only reduced Penny's offensive production and efficiency greatly but it severely limited him as a playmaker.

Penny's stats in those final 3 games: 21.3 ppg 4.0 rpg 4.7 apg 46.8 TS% 3.0 TO's

There was a reason Pippen led the playoffs in DRtg, as a perimeter player, no less.

[Manuel Calavera]

I'm not really following the Robinson logic here. If there was a stat that encompassed everything about basketball and was the end all be all of everything in rating players it might look like this for two made up players:

Player A:

RS: 40 God Points (GP) (or 10% of God)
PO: 30 GP

So player A played at an all-time great level in the regular season but in the playoffs had a noticeable dip.

Player B:

RS: 25 GP
PO: 29 GP

Here Player B plays at a much lower level than Player A in the regular season but elevates his game to approach but not surpass player A.

So how did Player B have the better season - even if I changed it so Player B had a 31 GP in the playoffs how does that make up for a substantially different RS? Because that's what I'm understanding from the Hakeem/Robinson/Malone/whoever debate.

[Gongxi]

Something about comparing players to themselves and handicapping them based upon that, Manuel. It's real complicated and not very useful, I'm just ignoring it. I'd suggest you do the same.

[semi-sentient]

^^The only thing I can think of is that it's gotta be the team success. Those Sonics win 54 games and he's not getting in anyone's top 5.

Wrong. His numbers are decent enough for consideration alongside the rest, and the fact that he was recognized for his work on both ends of the floor is why he's high up in my list. Being the #1 guy on a 64-win team is just icing on the cake, and the fact that he didn't fall off in the post-season is why he's above some of the bigs listed.

[semi-sentient]

BTW, isn't it funny that the Finals featured two teams whose best players were guards and not dominant big men?

What, Robinson and Malone didn't have enough help with Sean Elliot and John Stockton, respectively?

[kaima]

So how did Player B have the better season - even if I changed it so Player B had a 31 GP in the playoffs how does that make up for a substantially different RS? Because that's what I'm understanding from the Hakeem/Robinson/Malone/whoever debate.

What is the point of a good/great regular season? Is it just the same if the team makes the Finals or flames out in the first round?

Because Robinson's matchup failings, against specific post players, quite obviously meant a big individual dip and an immediate exit for his team right along with it. Going from a regular season average of 25 to 19 is pretty bad. Doing this at the peak of your power, consistently, is pretty close to awful.

Looked at in a micro to macro schema, what we have is a guy who, based on his inability to play not just up to his numbers in the regular season but likewise and parallel not able to come close to the output and skill-level shown by his star nemesis, is a second-tier star.

Robinson was not just playing beneath his level, he was playing greatly beneath the level of his competition, because of his competition.

And because of Malone, in this case, his team, with home court, again went home while the star that outplayed and, yes, owned him moved on because of those selfsame issues.

Again, not just the losing, but the obvious conflation of events, cause and effect, is what tells me Robinson should not be rated as highly as he is.

The Spurs are dominant, Robinson get's credit for "historic" performances in the regular season. The Spurs flame out...well, it must be Avery Johnson, it couldn't be that Robinson again not only played beneath his regular standard but also got dominated by the other team's star.

Frankly, I've never quite seen a player that put up the numbers Robinson did in the regular season get dominated by other star players so consistently. To me the correlation between his team losing and his being unable to put up a decent fight against Malone is inescapable.

And in the end, I think through this matchup, it was shown that Malone was better and more valuable to his team than Robinson.

That's my stance.

it will be the same stance in the 95 thread for Hakeem.

[kaima]

BTW, isn't it funny that the Finals featured two teams whose best players were guards and not dominant big men?

What, Robinson and Malone didn't have enough help with Sean Elliot and John Stockton, respectively?

Stockton had an injury that he probably shouldn't have even played with.

And it showed against Seattle.

I do find it interesting that Stockton is noted as second-rate consistently on this site, as well as the undue hype of Payton demolishing him (it would be due, if Stockton wasn't playing with a near-useless arm), but when it comes time to question or attack Malone, suddenly Stockton was a basketball-god-made-flesh who created a superstar named Karl Malone.

Or at the very least, even when playing as badly as he did in the Sonics series, he's supposed to be more than enough help to get to the Finals. Kind of ridiculous.

And considering what Malone did to Robinson, that portion of the question has already been answered many times over.

[TrueLAfan]

1. MJ. Obvious.
2. Malone. As noted, Malone was terrifying against Seattle...except for game 7. When it counted. Ouch. So what is worse…being subpar most of the time (Drob in the playoffs) or having two off games out of 18 (Malone)? For me, they were close enough in the regular season for Karl’s postseason to jump him a spot.
3. Drob. Had a sub-par series against Utah…which was a better team. With respect to the “always choked in the playoffs” theme…player voting in a single year is about performance that year. I’m not seeing Drob’s offensive swoon being more or less serious than Hakeem’s, and DRob had a (markedly) better RS. That being said, Robinson big postseason dropoff wasn’t in scoring and offense; it was on the other end.
4. Payton. He was a stud this year, period. More important to his team than Kemp, who had obvious gifts and less obvious--and significant—flaws. (If Shawn Kemp had learned to box out properly, his rebounding might be worth something. He didn’t, really. So it isn’t, as much.) In games 4-6 of the finals, Payton made Jordan work harder than pretty much anyone I had seen since the late 80s. Almost had him at 3; will look at the rest of the posts and could change this.
5. Penny. Had him a spot lower; moved him up basedon commetns here. The tendency to rate players in a specific season based on what they became later (or had been earlier) is hard to shake. Penny was kind of a sulky guy after injuries and time robbed him of some of his gifts…which can make you forget how great he had been previously.

HM: Hakeem (suffers only by comparison to others and himself in the previous two years) and Pippen

Re: Drob…One of the big problems with his postseason play that’s getting almost no mention here is defense. As noted, Robinson put up good numbers in the playoffs…they were just lower than his RS output. But the problem was he got outplayed, often greatly, by opposing frontcourt players. Since one of David Robinson’s key strengths is supposedly his D, his failures on that end in the playoffs greatly increase the dropoff from regular to postseason. People are talking about Jordan having two off shooting nights in the final three games of the finals when being guarded by Payton. Isn’t is suspicious that Jordan suddenly had two off games out of three...compared to Malone and Hakeem in 1994, 1995, and 1996…who had a total of three off games out of 15? Where’s the D, David?

So if David Robinson averages 21.1 points and 10.1 boards a game on 44.8% shooting, he’s playing well…but not as well as he should. And that’s on offense,. If the opposing frontcourt player who is also an MVP candidate is averaging 30.1 and 11.3 and shooting over 50%, Robinson’s dropoff is greater than the offensive numbers show. And that’s how David Robinson did and how Malone and Hakeem did in their playoff matchups in 1994, 1995, and 1996.

This is like two women trying to decide who has the uglier baby. When one looks like Steve Buscemi and the other like Clint Howard, what the hell difference does it make?

Best quote of the project. Seriously. Kaima is rocking the house.

[ElGee]

I'm not really following the Robinson logic here. If there was a stat that encompassed everything about basketball and was the end all be all of everything in rating players it might look like this for two made up players:

Player A:

RS: 40 God Points (GP) (or 10% of God)
PO: 30 GP

So player A played at an all-time great level in the regular season but in the playoffs had a noticeable dip.

Player B:

RS: 25 GP
PO: 29 GP

Here Player B plays at a much lower level than Player A in the regular season but elevates his game to approach but not surpass player A.

So how did Player B have the better season - even if I changed it so Player B had a 31 GP in the playoffs how does that make up for a substantially different RS? Because that's what I'm understanding from the Hakeem/Robinson/Malone/whoever debate.

I love this - God Points.

I'd like to extend the idea to looking at TEAM context, since in one breath Semi mentions how Payton played...and then follows it right up with the team success argument.

Let's say that a team with ~85 God Points is an elite team. Using the "No. 1 guy" on such a team argument is strictly looking at team success without considering how an individual played basketball.

Team A -- God Points
Frank -- 21
Mike -- 17
Doug -- 10
Walter -- 8
Fred -- 6
--
Herm -- 9
Harry -- 6
Martin -- 6

Team B -- God Points
Stuart -- 14
Lucas -- 13
Bishop -- 11
Phil -- 9
Jose -- 9
--
Theo -- 10
Ralph -- 7
Dicky -- 7

Both of these teams are elite. The makeup is entirely different, and these were not random numbers or random teams (I modeled them off of real teams and real data analysis). There are different ways to get a victory -- Rajon Rondo isn't a top 5 player in the NBA, regardless of whether Boston wins the title or not. Atlanta and Miami might end up with comparable records but "No. 1 option" on ~50-win team is not a good way at all to measure No. 1 options. Atlanta has a balanced attack, Miami has a bunch of bench-warmers.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm not really following the Robinson logic here. If there was a stat that encompassed everything about basketball and was the end all be all of everything in rating players it might look like this for two made up players:

Player A:

RS: 40 God Points (GP) (or 10% of God)
PO: 30 GP

So player A played at an all-time great level in the regular season but in the playoffs had a noticeable dip.

Player B:

RS: 25 GP
PO: 29 GP

Here Player B plays at a much lower level than Player A in the regular season but elevates his game to approach but not surpass player A.

So how did Player B have the better season - even if I changed it so Player B had a 31 GP in the playoffs how does that make up for a substantially different RS? Because that's what I'm understanding from the Hakeem/Robinson/Malone/whoever debate.

Well obviously I'm someone who wants people to be careful in criticizing a guy too much for not living up to his own bar. There are however some valid reasons for the conclusion you're wondering about:

1 - Most simply, there's the degree to which each person weighs the RS & PS. Whatever the performance gaps are, there is conceivably a weight someone can attach to the post-season that will give the nod to the superior post-season performer.

2 - More prevalent though, and more reasonable I think considering the numbers you're throwing out, is the conclusion that the playoff performance tells something crucial about the players in question. If there exists a player who dominates when he plays teams one game at a time, but is controllable in the playoffs when a team has time to shift their strategy, you can make a case that the playoffs are what that player is, and that the regular season is effectively an illusion. In some ways this seems too harsh, but think about it like this: Say we have an exaggerated Wilt/Russell scenario where the two guys are so good one wins every year, and that the Wilt-ish person always plays better in the regular season, but the Russell-ish person always plays better in the playoffs and wins the titles (say 11 to 1). (Again, not literally those two guys, don't come back with arguments about Russell's scoring) I think it's pretty fair to say that everyone that the guy with 11 rings is going to be considered better even though the guy with 1 ring played better most of the time they played.

So the question arises as to whether a player just has a disappointing post-season because every one goes through ruts, or a disappointing post-season because he's just not that good in the post-season.

So the attacks on Robinson carry more weight than they would otherwise if you follow this second line of thinking.

[Silver Bullet]

I'm not really following the Robinson logic here. If there was a stat that encompassed everything about basketball and was the end all be all of everything in rating players it might look like this for two made up players:

Player A:

RS: 40 God Points (GP) (or 10% of God)
PO: 30 GP

So player A played at an all-time great level in the regular season but in the playoffs had a noticeable dip.

Player B:

RS: 25 GP
PO: 29 GP

Here Player B plays at a much lower level than Player A in the regular season but elevates his game to approach but not surpass player A.

So how did Player B have the better season - even if I changed it so Player B had a 31 GP in the playoffs how does that make up for a substantially different RS? Because that's what I'm understanding from the Hakeem/Robinson/Malone/whoever debate.

Thank You.

This is what I've always argued in the Hakeem vs Robinson debate.

Robinson was like Chris Bosh on the craziest steroids ever created. If this guy had played just as well as he played in the regular season or if he'd ever had a dependable sidekick, we'd think of him in top 5 all time terms.
This guy probably played with the worst supporting cast for any premiere player ever - And yes, he's a jump shooting big man, and I hate every single one of them, but he's like the Federer of jump shooting bigs and these guys will always fail in the playoffs - just like KG does, just like Bosh, just like Nowitzki, I mean, for the life of me I won't understand how people can overrate KG so much and then punish Robinson for the exact same things.

To be fair, just like KG, he doesn't play as big as his stats would indicate. My only issue is, he was so so much better than the guy he's usually compared to i.e. Olajuwon that even after you knock him down a few pegs for his playoff failures - he should still be above Hakeem.

His teams were attrocious. The guy should not have been in the playoffs to begin with - and he goes and wins 59 games, and all of a sudden you have these crazy expectations for him. I mean, I am sure if he'd never made the playoffs in the first place and never got dominated by Hakeem, the whole lot of you would have him ranked higher.

59 wins with 1 star caliber player, a pedestrian second option and a bunch of backups.

vs the Bulls that year - who were just loaded top to bottom.

The top spot for me is between Jordan and Robinson - but I can't decide. Robinson was horrendous in that Jazz series (eventhough he shouldn't have gotten that far in the first place) but he was pretty good in the Phoenix series too - 40 and 21 in game 3, 30-13-6 in game 4...

And he's right there with Jordan statistically, even though their usage rates are miles apart.

After that - I don't have a clue. But I do feel Payton is getting overrated.

[Doctor MJ]

Just wanted to say I'm seeing some good argument on the pro-Hakeem, con-Robinson side. I have to admit that these series aren't fresh in my mind.

A question: Regarding Robinson getting stopped by one guy, it's been mentioned that this happened multiple times in a row. My recollection was that in the '95 Houston series, Robinson got swarmed. Was this not the case?

[Silver Bullet]

Just wanted to say I'm seeing some good argument on the pro-Hakeem, con-Robinson side. I have to admit that these series aren't fresh in my mind.

A question: Regarding Robinson getting stopped by one guy, it's been mentioned that this happened multiple times in a row. My recollection was that in the '95 Houston series, Robinson got swarmed. Was this not the case?

Yes, Rudy T used the same strategy right through the playoffs and Bob Hill got skewered in the press for not doubling Hakeem. There's a very nice article floating around on this, lemme see if i can find it.