1993 MVP and best player [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

fpliii

01-07-2015, 12:13 AM

does anyone have RAPM numbers for the postseason? maybe fpliii can help us out here.

the rockets weren't the team they became in 1994 or in 1995 (with drexler) - but olajuwon was most definitely in his peak in 1993. there is no question about it.

as far as his points go, you should mention that they go along with 14 rebounds, 4 blocks, 4 assists and 3 steals.

the game isn't all about scoring. hero ball era :no:
RAPM includes regular season + postseason. That being said, those are a regression based on RAPM (which doesn't exist before 96-97 because of lack of digitalized play by plays). The guy who produced those numbers is the same guy who supplies RPM for ESPN, so they're pretty good.

Anyhow, I think Hakeem was clearly the MVP and best player that year. Best player defensively, and was a monster in the half court offensively. Spent the previous summer working on his moves (I can provide a quote later if I have a chance).

EDIT - Here it is:

I worked hard that summer I hired a trainer named Charles who helped with my program, and each morning Charles would pick me up and I would run on the beach. I didn’t like running in the sand, it was tough on me, but it was worthwhile, building up endurance. I would eat a light lunch and in the afternoon I would lift weights. In the evenings Charles and I would go to a local high school and shoot buckets and work on my moves.

Charles also took me to Gold’s Gym. He told me it was the weight trainer’s Mecca. I had been to Mecca, all my life Mecca to me had meant the city in Saudi Arabia, the center of Islam. I didn’t know that Mecca also meant the ultimate center, an ultimate place to go, but when I walked into Gold’s Gym I understood exactly when he meant.

These people were like animals. Enormous animals. Even the women. Everyone there was pumped up and full of muscle and I looked so skinny. There were women much thicker than I was and everybody was so intense. I said, “This is a place for the devoted. If you’re not serious you shouldn’t even be walking in here.”

When I’d gotten to the University of Houston they’d taken me into the weight room the first say and I hadn’t been able to lift the bar off my chest. The bar, by itself. I didn’t have the technique and i wasn’t very strong. I had put on a little strength since then but I said to Charles, “This is not my game.” He understood clearly.

I started building by using light weights scaled to my abilities. At first it was strange. I had to get used to the technique and the concentration. But the more I wired with these weights the more I relaxed. In three days I really grew to like it.

I also realized I was getting immediate benefit from these workouts. When I took my shot or worked on my moves all the pain that I usually had in my knees and ankles went away. I was used to having my back ache and my muscles be tight and sore after a good session on the court—if you don’t really work out you can’t do the moves—but now everything seemed so relaxed and easy. Still, I would go to sleep *tired* at night and be sore in the morning. I knew if it was just me I would feel so tired I wouldn’t go work out the next day, but Charles really pushed me and I would warm up and be surprised to feel my body respond and recover quickly.

Charles had arranged for some high school students to rebound for me, so all I did on the court was work on individual moves.

I had never worked on my moves before. During the summers at Fonde I just played and competed, and whatever I wanted to try I tried in game competition. I had never stood off to one side and worked on footwork or leaping or any technique at all, I had worked on learning what worked, I had worked on winning. This was very different.

There was music in the background, a tape of pop music, and it made me creative. I had a lot of energy. I would shoot my jumper and see how high I could go and release the ball. In my mind I saw myself making each move and I felt like it was art. I would fake right, fake left, spin to the baseline. There was a rhythm, like I was dancing to the music. I felt like I was dancing on the court.

My jump hook had extra spring. Everything was sharp. I would make a jump hook, get tossed the rebound, take one bounce, and *go!* I could tell I was on top of my game. In athletics everything is control, you don’t do anything in a lazy way. I had energy and my breathing was wary because I was in condition.

I would shoot twenty-five jump hooks from the right side. Not just ordinary jump hooks, we were talking about preparing at a certain angle and jump hooks of a certain height. You did it right or you did it over. I stopped thinking about the jump hook and just shot it.

Then we worked on shooting jumpers from behind a pick. Sometimes in the past I would get the ball and realize I didn’t want to shoot it. Now I began thinking like a guard, like the in-between player I was. I would work on making my inside foot, the one closest to the basket, hit the floor just as I got the ball so when I jumped to shoot I was already squared up, shoulders facing the basket. It’s all in the footwork. Inside foot, outside foot, spring. If your feet are underneath you and your shoulders are not spinning to catch up, you will be balanced, your elevation will be better, you will jump higher and straighter and will have more time to take a good look at the basket. I saw how high I was jumping and that I was getting a good release. My shot was falling very softly. I was even hanging for a while and I had time, If I didn’t like the shot I was taking, to make different choices. I could pass in front of me; I had time to find an open man on the perimeter. I was in control.

All of a sudden basketball became new again! I pictured myself shooting from the outside. My game had been all spinning moves for a couple of years; every game I was going up against men bigger than I was but not as mobile, and I could spin in the paint and lose them. Now I began to bring those moves outside. If you can handle the ball a little bit outside you can spin and shoot the jumper, which makes your game much more dangerous because now they have to come get you and you can go right around them. When I pictured that I really got motivated!

iamgine

01-07-2015, 12:14 AM

:cheers:

david robinson is so underrated. that ONE series vs hakeem basically (and wrongfully) summed up his career - and while hakeem did thoroughly embarrass him, more often than not, drob played him to a statistical draw for a large portion of their careers.
As well as Drob's team winning the big majority of their matchups, way before Duncan even came to town.

DatAsh

01-07-2015, 12:15 AM

Charles Barkley had that all-important media push all year that season. It seemed like it was pretty much his award to lose from the outset.

But I see where you're coming from. I feel similarly about David Robinson. I thought '94 was going to be his MVP year, not '95. 30 ppg, 11 rebounds, 5 assists, 3 blocks, 71-point game, quadruple double... I thought he was the Charles Barkley of '94 (in terms of the award being his to lose).

I guess he lost it when the Spurs fell to the Jazz.

Honestly Barkley had a really good argument for MVP though, I remember the year quite well, and I don't have a problem with him winning it that year.

Yes, the narrative at the time was definitely in his favor, but deservedly so imo. Jordan was the better player, but he - and the rest of the Bulls - sort of took the regular season off. Bulls were a 67-70 win team that won 57 games due to coasting in the regular season. Hakeem was solid, but I'd still go with Barkley that year if it happened again.

fpliii

01-07-2015, 12:32 AM

Quote (cont.):

I was being represented at the time by the Los Angeles-based agent Leonard Armato and one day he brought one of his new clients to the high school gym, this guy just out of Louisiana State University, Shaquille O’Neal.

I had spent entire summers going up against Moses Malone so I had some idea of what Shaquille might be thinking when he met me on the gym floor. *”Be a man!”* But Armato had told me Shaquille had said some very complimentary things about me, and, of course, I had heard about the number-one pick in the 1992 draft. I was having such a good time getting into condition and working on my moves that I invited Shaquille to work with me. This was not a game and we were not competing, this was going to be very pleasant. We trained together that day.

The first thing I noticed about Shaquille was that he was a lot bigger than I was. I was 6’11” and weighted about 250 pound he was 7’2” and up around 300—and still growing! He had the perfect big man’s body; once he got in the paint there was nothing anybody was going to be able to do with him.

We practiced moves together, big man’s moves. He tossed me the ball and I put up a jump hook. I tossed him the ball and he did exactly what I did. We did that a couple of times. Then, as a courtesy, I said, “You do something and I’ll follow you.” He put up a turnaround jumper and I did the same thing.

To show him how to fake the turnaround and use it as a threat to make the jump hook more effective, I told him, “Okay, you guard me.”

He didn’t know whether I was going to shoot the jumper or the jump hook. The players I had gone up against in the league or in practice had consistently fallen for the fake. I got the ball with my back to the basket and faked to my right. He bought the fake. I turned hard to my left, and shot the jump hook. At that moment he was lost; that move was sharp and new to him.

But the next time I tried it Shaquille straightened out. That’s when I realized how quick Shaquille was. In the league when they go for the fakes they never recover. But that’s what was different about Shaquille, he recovered and was there for the block. Shaquille wanted to block everything. I remembered how that felt.

Then I gave Shaquille the ball and showed him the basics of the Dream Shake. I showed him the moves and the footwork. Why would I do that when I knew we were going to play against each other for the next ten or fifteen years? I like sharing moves. If you’re scared about competition you shouldn’t even be in this league. I take joy in watching a skillful big man use his skills and I knew that if he wanted to, Shaquille would use the Dream Shake well.

Then I guarded him.

Shaquille was a fast learner. I had showed my moves to people before, and very often I’ had to instruct them over and over, something would be wrong. Not Shaquille. If he saw it he could do it. Show him, give him the ball, and he’ll do it exactly. I saw how high he jumped, how he released the ball far out of my reach. He was bigger and stronger than I was and he was taking my shot at a higher level. I was there to block him if he tried only half-heartedly, but he found right away that if the move was *sharp* he could beat me. That, in a single lesson, is the bottom line of the NBA: Play hard, if people respect you move they will back off and you can beat them. And Shaquille got it.

Shaquille showed me some moves of his own. He had power and energy and he was young. He did not really shoot a hook shot, he threw it down. I would finish a move with a jump hook a few feet from the basket, he would finish with a hook *dunk* with his hand inside the rim! He also had a nice touch on his turnaround jump shot, which was unusual for a man as big as he was. The jumper was natural, nice touch, particularly from the baseline. He was so big I didn’t have time to see if he was faking, I had to go up with him in order to have any chance to block him. One time he faked, I went up and he went under me. He made a nice move on me. I had tremendous respect for his ability.

In the league we would hear about kids in college who were going to come out and be a force, but we never knew what was hype and what was truth. College reputations are fine for college players, but in the pros you make your name all over again. Some guys start from scratch, some come from nowhere, some guys surpass expectations, and some can never live up to them. None of this was Shaquille’s problem. I knew right away this young man was going to terrorize the league. Any publicity he was going to get, he deserved it.

It was a wonderful morning. We worked together for two hours and it was very good to practice my post moves against someone who could play strong defense against them. Shaquille worked hard and so did I.

I enjoyed playing with Shaquille and I enjoyed being with him. He was a cool guy. No ego. I told him I really liked his nickname: Shaq. Some nicknames are just okay but his rhymed and it had the right meaning, that was his game. Shaq Attack. I liked my nickname for the same reason, it rhymed and it had the right meaning: The Dream. My whole life was too good to be true. I told him and he smiled. He seemed kind of shy. We talked and he knew I liked him right away. We established a relationship with mutual respect and I was very happy to have met him.

His thoughts on Rudy T that season:

Rudy’s offensive system was very much the same as the one Coach Fitch had run before him. It all began with the ball being tossed in to the big man in the post. That is the only system for a team that has a good center. All good things flow from there. Any big man who requires a double- or triple-team should automatically be the first option. The coach can put in plays, we can run them in practice, but when the plays break down you can go back to the big man. That’s your foundation. If you don’t have a foundation your whole building will collapse.

It’s very simple. When you establish your inside game it’s easier to win. A dominant center who can score anytime you get him the ball will attract a crowd. If I can score over my opponent one-on-one, he will need help guarding me. That help has to come from somewhere, which means that one of my teammates is now open. I have two choices: I can try to shoot over both of the en guarding me or I can pass the ball out and we as a team can whip the ball around and find the open man for an open shot.

In order for our entire offense to be effective I must show the opponents that I’m going to score if they let me. I have to be a threat, otherwise they won’t double-team me. So I have to prove I can score, and I have to do it immediately. I don’t want to give the opposition time to run someone at me or to develop a rotation so my teammates will be covered. I want to damage them early. So I shoot. Over the course of my career I have proved I can score if I’m being guarded by only one man.

At the same time our coach is watching their rotation. Who moves to double-team me? How well does the rest of the team react, what shifts are made to cover our other players on the floor? The opponents will, of course, have spent a lot of time developing a system to stop me and to cut down the options for the rest of my team. My coach will design a game plan to counter their game plan. For instance, when the Rockets’ guard throws the ball into the pivot Rudy will see if the defense is coming from the baseline or from another angle to guard me, and he will use that knowledge to put our guys in the best position to receive a pass and score. If they collapse on me I can toss the ball inside to one of my men cutting to the basket or outside to a guard for a three-point shot. If a man runs at the shooter he can pass it around the perimeter until an open man gets it or he can step inside the defender and shoot. There are thousands of options and they all change each time someone handles the ball. It’s chess with big guys.

fpliii

01-07-2015, 12:32 AM

Lastly, his feelings on the team in general, as well as a disappointing playoffs (in which they were potentially robbed against Seattle in G7):

[quote]Our team was coming together. Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell had been starting in the backcourt together for three years now. Otis Thorpe was starting his fifth year as a Rocket. He had been selected to the All-Star team in 1992 and was a strong power forward who could rebound and score. The new guy in the starting lineup was the first round pick from the University of Alabama, Robert Horry. At 6

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

01-07-2015, 12:34 AM

DatAsh

01-07-2015, 12:38 AM

Hakeem was better than Barkley, imo. After Jordan's epic postseason run, and more speicifcally, in the finals, I don't know how you could take Hakeem over him. That's just me though.

@fpliii - how much weight do you put into "RAPM"? Seems like more and more stat geeks (no offense) are using this now instead of PER and the joke stat "winshares".

I agree with Hakeem over Barkley that year if the goal is to win a championship, which is what really matters. That's not all that the MVPs really about though unfortunately.

fpliii

01-07-2015, 12:40 AM

Hakeem was better than Barkley, imo. After Jordan's epic postseason run; and more specifically, in the finals, I don't know how you could take Hakeem over him. That's just me though.

@fpliii - how much weight do you put into "RAPM"? Seems like more and more stat geeks (no offense) are using this now instead of PER and the joke stat "winshares".
No offense taken. It's a quality measure, got into it a bit in LAZ's thread recently:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10865413&postcount=79

Other than watching a ton of tape, I give it the most tape in player evaluations. In short, it isolates a player from his teammates/opponents to produce an estimate of his impact (that is to say, ability to affect scoring margin while on the floor). Problem is, it doesn't exist prior to 96-97 (I look at net on/off, SRS with and without a player, team ORtg/DRtg for older seasons).

PER is rubbish though...no regression was involved in the preparation of the formula (Hollinger played around until he found something ranking players that pass the smell test at the top), and it uses box score stats exclusively. Win Shares and derivative (including *individual* ORtg/DRtg) measures use regressions, but are limited to the box score as well. Hollinger is actually a brilliant guy, I've spoken with him before via PMs on the APBRmetrics board. I doubt he's using much PER with Memphis, it's just easier to explain to the public than something based on sophisticated math/stats/programming.

fpliii

01-07-2015, 12:42 AM

Anyhow kuniva that was the first year I started watching, and MJ was terrific as well. Clear-cut #2 IMO.

I feel like there may be a prevailing belief that MJ took it easy, and was affected by fatigue that season, from all the playoff runs, as well as the Olympics the previous summer. I don't think that was the case, and from the tape he seemed to consistently give tremendous effort, and perform at a high level defensively (if anything, the wear and tear/fatigue affected Scottie more I'd say, maybe Grant as well). This season probably isn't very far-removed from 90-92 IMO. Perhaps he was attacking the rim less often. From Pollack's guides (and stats.nba.com for his last two seasons), his dunk totals were (nothing available before 88):

88 - 158 in 82 games
89 - 117 in 81 games
90 - 153 in 82 games
91 - 126 in 82 games
92 - 98 in 80 games
93 - 94 in 78 games
95 - 25 in 17 games
96 - 92 in 82 games
97 - 49 in 82 games
98 - 89 in 82 games

DatAsh

01-07-2015, 12:45 AM

fpliii

01-07-2015, 12:50 AM

I'd have to re-watch the games and focus in on Jordan specifically, but the Bulls definitely coasted through that season from what I can remember.
I was still in elementary school at the time, so my memory might not be perfect, but going back and watching some games these past couple years, MJ seemed to give 100% on both ends, even during the regular season. I feel like the long runs (and Olympics for Scottie) took more out of Pippen/Grant, even though they were both terrific athletes.

Again, could be wrong off course.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

01-07-2015, 01:14 AM

No offense taken. It's a quality measure, got into it a bit in LAZ's thread recently:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10865413&postcount=79

Other than watching a ton of tape, I give it the most tape in player evaluations. In short, it isolates a player from his teammates/opponents to produce an estimate of his impact (that is to say, ability to affect scoring margin while on the floor). Problem is, it doesn't exist prior to 96-97 (I look at net on/off, SRS with and without a player, team ORtg/DRtg for older seasons).

PER is rubbish though...no regression was involved in the preparation of the formula (Hollinger played around until he found something ranking players that pass the smell test at the top), and it uses box score stats exclusively. Win Shares and derivative (including *individual* ORtg/DRtg) measures use regressions, but are limited to the box score as well. Hollinger is actually a brilliant guy, I've spoken with him before via PMs on the APBRmetrics board. I doubt he's using much PER with Memphis, it's just easier to explain to the public than something based on sophisticated math/stats/programming.

Thanks for the info. RAPM and how you described it to LAZ looked pretty damn advanced so I needed to read your tldr version. Hah :cheers:

It' a pretty decent metric though all things considered. The fact it takes into account roster changes is huge.

Going by what you know, and having done your research, what would your top 5 look like from 91-93? I'm looking at these RAPM charts, and seeing Jordan listed at 3 or 4 makes this look suspect. I get that most of these guys are big men so there value is awesome to begin with, but I would never take David Robinson, and any version of him, over Jordan from 91-93. Thinking about it just makes me laugh.

sportjames23

01-07-2015, 01:17 AM

I was still in elementary school at the time, so my memory might not be perfect, but going back and watching some games these past couple years, MJ seemed to give 100% on both ends, even during the regular season. I feel like the long runs (and Olympics for Scottie) took more out of Pippen/Grant, even though they were both terrific athletes.

Again, could be wrong off course.

Nah, the Bulls coasted. Phil purposely did that to save MJ and Scottie for the playoffs, since the previous season they played into June (NBA Finals) and played in July and August (pre-Olympic tournament, exhibition and Olympics).

Not to say that MJ didn't play hard, but he and the rest of the team did hold back a bit. I mean, a championship team doesn't drop that far (from 67 games to 57 games) without losing key members to free agency, injury or conserving energy. Notice how the '93 Bulls were the only Bulls title team to win less than 60 games.

fpliii

01-07-2015, 01:25 AM

Nah, the Bulls coasted. Phil purposely did that to save MJ and Scottie for the playoffs, since the previous season they played into June (NBA Finals) and played in July and August (pre-Olympic tournament, exhibition and Olympics).

Not to say that MJ didn't play hard, but he and the rest of the team did hold back a bit. I mean, a championship team doesn't drop that far (from 67 games to 57 games) without losing key members to free agency, injury or conserving energy. Notice how the '93 Bulls were the only Bulls title team to win less than 60 games.
Was he holding back though? Maybe I haven't watched enough of MJ through 92, but he seemed to make every rotation on time defensively, still made guys work off the ball a ton, and went after every loose ball.

It seems to me Pippen/Grant suffered the most. Was MJ really fatigued as well? If so, I'll have to watch more tape.

fpliii

01-07-2015, 01:28 AM

Thanks for the info. RAPM and how you described it to LAZ looked pretty damn advanced so I needed to read your tldr version. Hah :cheers:

It' a pretty decent metric though all things considered. The fact it takes into account roster changes is huge.

Going by what you know, and having done your research, what would your top 5 look like from 91-93? I'm looking at these RAPM charts, and seeing Jordan listed at 3 or 4 makes this look suspect. I get that most of these guys are big men so there value is awesome to begin with, but I would never take David Robinson, and any version of him, over Jordan from 91-93. Thinking about it just makes me laugh.
There is no RAPM from 91-93, or any year before 96-97. As I noted, those are just based on a regression. It's better than nothing of course, but it's not truly RAPM.

93, I think I'd say

Hakeem
MJ
Robinson
Malone
Shaq or Barkley

I can't really give you a top 5 for 91 or 92, I've watched a lot of the playoffs, and all of the conference finals + NBA finals, but I wouldn't feel comfortable listing my top 5 players. Haven't watched enough tape, sorry.

Shep

01-07-2015, 01:37 AM

Bro I think Mj was the best player too that year but only slightly. The supersonics were triple teaming him the whole series.
I wouldn't say slightly I would say easily. Slightly for example would be Robinson over Barkley that year. No, Jordan's Playoff run made it clear who was the best player that year, Olajuwon was clearly the second best player by a wide margin against the third best (Robinson) though.

the rockets weren't the team they became in 1994 or in 1995 (with drexler) - but olajuwon was most definitely in his peak in 1993. there is no question about it.

as far as his points go, you should mention that they go along with 14 rebounds, 4 blocks, 4 assists and 3 steals.

the game isn't all about scoring. hero ball era
Where did that 14 rebounds 4 blocks 4 assists and 3 steals get him? second round exit is where.

As for Olajuwon's peak being 1993 - nice joke statement. His peak was actually 1995, followed by 1994

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

01-07-2015, 01:45 AM

There is no RAPM from 91-93, or any year before 96-97. As I noted, those are just based on a regression. It's better than nothing of course, but it's not truly RAPM.

93, I think I'd say

Hakeem
MJ
Robinson
Malone
Shaq or Barkley

I can't really give you a top 5 for 91 or 92, I've watched a lot of the playoffs, and all of the conference finals + NBA finals, but I wouldn't feel comfortable listing my top 5 players. Haven't watched enough tape, sorry.
Save for MJ not being #1, I see nothing wrong with this (duly noted on the regression verz of RAPM).

Appreciate the honesty too.

fpliii

01-07-2015, 01:49 AM

Save for MJ not being #1, I see nothing wrong with this (duly noted on the regression verz of RAPM).

Appreciate the honesty too.
No problem.

When did you start watching? Who would your top 5 be for 91, 92, 93?

juju151111

01-07-2015, 01:55 AM

I wouldn't say slightly I would say easily. Slightly for example would be Robinson over Barkley that year. No, Jordan's Playoff run made it clear who was the best player that year, Olajuwon was clearly the second best player by a wide margin against the third best (Robinson) though.

Where did that 14 rebounds 4 blocks 4 assists and 3 steals get him? second round exit is where.

As for Olajuwon's peak being 1993 - nice joke statement. His peak was actually 1995, followed by 1994
I don't think that's his peak. That's just when he won a Championship. I think MJ peak was 90 or 91. I watched that series and the Sonics swarmed him. The Sonics had success over the Rockets for a couple years because of that swarming defense. This is why Hansen was trying to do other things to win. Hakeem was quicker in 93 and better defensively. His team improved the years after.

sportjames23

01-07-2015, 01:57 AM

Was he holding back though? Maybe I haven't watched enough of MJ through 92, but he seemed to make every rotation on time defensively, still made guys work off the ball a ton, and went after every loose ball.

It seems to me Pippen/Grant suffered the most. Was MJ really fatigued as well? If so, I'll have to watch more tape.

I don't think MJ, nor Pip nor Grant, were fatigued. I just think Phil didn't push them hard so they wouldn't be fatigued come playoff time. Basically, they picked their spots that season when to play up to their usual standards and when to hold back.

fpliii

01-07-2015, 02:01 AM

I don't think MJ, nor Pip nor Grant, were fatigued. I just think Phil didn't push them hard so they wouldn't be fatigued come playoff time. Basically, they picked their spots that season when to play up to their usual standards and when to hold back.
I'll take your word for it, I just need to watch more RS games then I guess. Thanks for the response. :cheers:

BTW same question as kuniva, when did you start watching, and who would your top 5 be in each of 91, 92, 93?

juju151111

01-07-2015, 02:08 AM

I don't think MJ, nor Pip nor Grant, were fatigued. I just think Phil didn't push them hard so they wouldn't be fatigued come playoff time. Basically, they picked their spots that season when to play up to their usual standards and when to hold back.
Pollen and Grant was definitely fatigued. Phil talked about it in his book that they had down years, but Mj wasn't that much. He still had a good regular season. He definitely wasn't has motivated has his first and 2nd chips through. Every thing was about winning when his first chip. He wasn't gambling or staying up pass curfew during playoffs games in 91. He was relaxed in 93. Even though his relax is still better then 99% of the league lol

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

01-07-2015, 02:31 AM

No problem.

When did you start watching? Who would your top 5 be for 91, 92, 93?

I believe sometime around the Laker and Portland conference finals in 91. My fathers side of the family are avid LA sports fans, so they taped / watched all the Laker-Clipper games back then. Good times.

Top 5? I'll give you a top 3 lol

1991:
Jordan (best combination of skill, athleticism and individual impact)
Magic (took a washed up, injury riddled Laker team back to the finals)
Drob/Barkley (tossup for me; I felt Drob was more raw, whereas Barkley missed a few games with injuries)

1992:
Jordan
Clyde (there were a few games I thought guy was actually better than Mike :eek:)
Drob

1993:
Jordan
Hakeem
Barkley/Drob (Barkley was a better offensive player, clearly, but Drob just dominated everywhere; another tough call here).

Going off the top, but this is what I remember and felt at the time.

fpliii

01-07-2015, 02:35 AM

I believe sometime around the Laker and Portland conference finals in 91. My fathers side of the family are avid LA sports fans, so they taped / watched all the Laker-Clipper games back then. Good times.

Top 5? I'll give you a top 3 lol

1991:
Jordan (best combination of skill, athleticism and individual impact)
Magic (took a washed up, injury riddled Laker team back to the finals)
Drob/Barkley (tossup for me; I felt Drob was more raw, whereas Barkley missed a few games with injuries)

1992:
Jordan
Clyde (there were a few games I thought guy was actually better than Mike :eek:)
Drob

1993:
Jordan
Hakeem
Barkley/Drob (Barkley was a better offensive player, clearly, but Drob just dominated everywhere; tough call here).

Going off the top, but this is what I remember and felt at the time.
Thanks. That's pretty cool, we had league pass the year it started, but before that it was just national games.

Clyde was legit top 2 in 92? I've read the Blazers were stacked with talent, but I've also heard that lack of reliable half court offense held them back in the playoffs. Seems like there was a ton of hype for that Finals either way.

SamuraiSWISH

01-07-2015, 02:37 AM

Jordan was the best player, and should've been MVP in basically every season he played from '88, '89, '90, '91, '92, '93, '96, '97. MJ was short changed like 2 - 3 MVPs total.

The post season always gives a clearer picture of who the best player, and MVP was. 1993 is no different. He already had a great regular season, his playoffs separated him from Hakeem, and his head to head in the Finals distinguished himself from Barkley.

Visibly, and unquestionably.

MJ won MVP in 1998, deserved it contextually, but Shaq was arguably or probably the best player. That was the only year he played where best player was truly up for debate IMO.

Shep

01-07-2015, 02:37 AM

I don't think that's his peak. That's just when he won a Championship. I think MJ peak was 90 or 91. I watched that series and the Sonics swarmed him. The Sonics had success over the Rockets for a couple years because of that swarming defense. This is why Hansen was trying to do other things to win. Hakeem was quicker in 93 and better defensively. His team improved the years after.
You go as far as your best player takes you. MJ's peak was 1993, Olajuwon's peak was 1995. Being quick/fast isn't shit over having a basketball IQ.

SamuraiSWISH

01-07-2015, 02:41 AM

Clyde was legit top 2 in 92? I've read the Blazers were stacked with talent, but I've also heard that lack of reliable half court offense held them back in the playoffs. Seems like there was a ton of hype for that Finals either way.
Honestly, Terry Porter might have been their best half court offensive player. He was very effective creating off the dribble, and also had a nice jumper. Drexler was more a nightmare in transition. He took way too many 3's for my liking.

julizaver

01-07-2015, 05:13 AM

imo was hakeem. people confuse his peak for 1994 and 1995, but they forget about the 1993 season. hakeem did everything that year as well, winning big games, while playing big on the big stage. in the regular season, hakeem averaged 26 PTS /13 REB /4 AST /4 BLK on 53% FG.

great numbers right? look at the playoffs. hakeem in an elimination game against the clipers put up 31/21/7/3/3. :eek:

in the playoffs overall, hakeem averaged an insane 26/14/5/5. he led his team to the semi finals and the rockets were ONE game away from the conference finals to face the suns had it not been for MULTIPLE bad calls. hakeem still had 23/17/9 though.

getting back to the mvp though - he was second in MVP voting, above jordan, and should have been MVP - but was without question, arguably the best player in the league.

RAPM suggests he and david robinson were the most efficient AND dominant players that season:
http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/1993.html

MJ was at his peak at 1993 and had his best Finals ever (probably). Although Hakeem had good numbers that season - MJ was clearly and recognizibly the best player in the league. After his retirement he cited that regular season was boring him and he wants to play only at post-season because this is what matters most and the level of competition.

sportjames23

01-07-2015, 05:37 AM

I'll take your word for it, I just need to watch more RS games then I guess. Thanks for the response. :cheers:

BTW same question as kuniva, when did you start watching, and who would your top 5 be in each of 91, 92, 93?

I started watching around 1985.

I'll have to think about my top 5 for those seasons.

ArbitraryWater

01-07-2015, 11:54 AM

I started watching around 1985.

I'll have to think about my top 5 for those seasons.

:biggums:

If thats true... damn, you post way too many smileys instead of educating..lol

mehyaM24

01-07-2015, 02:50 PM

RAPM includes regular season + postseason. That being said, those are a regression based on RAPM (which doesn't exist before 96-97 because of lack of digitalized play by plays). The guy who produced those numbers is the same guy who supplies RPM for ESPN, so they're pretty good.

Anyhow, I think Hakeem was clearly the MVP and best player that year. Best player defensively, and was a monster in the half court offensively. Spent the previous summer working on his moves (I can provide a quote later if I have a chance).

EDIT - Here it is:

:rockon:

im not a big fan of hakeem, but 1993-1995 was his league. got to call it like i see it.

As for Olajuwon's peak being 1993 - nice joke statement. His peak was actually 1995, followed by 1994
higher RAPM/impact than jordan in 1993, just a worse team. hakeem's peak was DEFINITELY in 1993, 1994 and 1995. you cannot dispute the facts, my friend.

riseagainst

01-07-2015, 03:00 PM

:rockon:

im not a big fan of hakeem, but 1993-1995 was his league. got to call it like i see it.

higher RAPM/impact than jordan in 1993, just a worse team. hakeem's peak was DEFINITELY in 1993, 1994 and 1995. you cannot dispute the facts, my friend.

could you post his RAPM in 93 as well as MJ's? And Hakeem's in 94 and 95 as well?

mehyaM24

01-07-2015, 03:03 PM

could you post his RAPM in 93 as well as MJ's? And Hakeem's in 94 and 95 as well?
its not "technically" rapm, as fpliii said....but the metric does include both the regular season and playoffs, which is the best we have to date.
http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/1993.html
http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/1994.html
http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/1995.html

3ball

01-07-2015, 03:16 PM

T_L_P

01-07-2015, 03:20 PM

using rapm to determine the "best" player is no different than using PER, winshares or any other stat.

it's still a stat, and stats in any form to measure who the "best" is, will be inherently flawed.

the problem i see with rapm is that it's impossible to get a reliable sample size.. virtually impossible... :confusedshrug:

i would put zero faith in rapm... for example, in those numbers from 1993, it says that barkely had a bigger impact defensively than jordan... that's ridiculous...

and just looking at the offensive end of the floor, i think offensive win share is a better true indicator of a player's offensive impact... there are too many problems inherent with rapm to rely on any of those numbers.

rapm is a nice concept, but unworkable, mainly due to sample size.

RAPM isn't workable in most years. I'm pretty sure the necessary data for it to work didn't come about until the late 90s. :confusedshrug:

fpliii

01-07-2015, 03:23 PM

using rapm to determine the "best" player is no different than using PER, winshares or any other stat.

it's still a stat, and stats in any form to measure who the "best" is, will be inherently flawed.

the problem i see with rapm is that it's impossible to get a reliable sample size.. virtually impossible... :confusedshrug:

i would put zero faith in rapm... for example, in those numbers from 1993, it says that barkely had a bigger impact defensively than jordan... that's ridiculous...

and just looking at the offensive end of the floor, i think offensive win share is a better true indicator of a player's offensive impact... there are too many problems inherent with rapm to rely on any of those numbers.

rapm is a nice concept, but unworkable, mainly due to sample size.
RAPM is stable at ~2500 minutes, and gets more stable when more seasons are added as priors. That being said, again, RAPM doesn't exist before 96-97. The numbers posted for 93 are a regression based on RAPM. It's better than nothing obviously though.

Also note that there is a separate regression for finding offense and defense splits, after the totals are found. Barkley rates below average defensively in years for which we have actual RAPM.

riseagainst

01-07-2015, 03:24 PM

its not "technically" rapm, as fpliii said....but the metric does include both the regular season and playoffs, which is the best we have to date.
http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/1993.html
http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/1994.html
http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/1995.html

holy, those show that David Robinson was lightyears ahead of Hakeem in 94 and 95.

:bowdown:

jlip

01-07-2015, 03:27 PM

Interesting quotes about Hakeem's rank in '93

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8517970&postcount=37

T_L_P

01-07-2015, 03:29 PM

holy, those show that David Robinson was lightyears ahead of Hakeem in 94 and 95.

:bowdown:

David Robinson is the greatest Regular Season performer in NBA history imo.

His offensive game (basically dominating in the open court) just didn't translate very well into the Playoffs. And he was a shrinker, as much as I hate saying it.

3ball

01-07-2015, 03:29 PM

RAPM is stable at ~2500 minutes, and gets more stable when more seasons are added as priors. That being said, again, RAPM doesn't exist before 96-97. The numbers posted for 93 are a regression based on RAPM. It's better than nothing obviously though.

Also note that there is a separate regression for finding offense and defense splits, after the totals are found. Barkley rates below average defensively in years for which we have actual RAPM.
here's the problem with rapm flpiii.

let's say rapm determines that over the course of a season, mark price and reggie miller have a bigger offensive impact for their teams than jordan had for his team.

does that mean the bulls would be better replacing jordan with them instead?

fpliii

01-07-2015, 03:29 PM

You go as far as your best player takes you. MJ's peak was 1993, Olajuwon's peak was 1995. Being quick/fast isn't shit over having a basketball IQ.
He was more skilled offensively in 95 maybe, but his defense wasn't the same, and he lost some athleticism. Additionally, he was suffering from anemia (as was Maxwell), so he wasn't 100% physically that season.

93 and 94 were his best two seasons, pretty clearly IMO.

3ball

01-07-2015, 03:31 PM

Interesting quotes about Hakeem's rank in '93

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8517970&postcount=37
quotes mean nothing - you will always have people saying "this player is having a great season"... "so and so is playing just as good as jordan"

but they are still the minority.

you want me to post the quotes for people praising jordan in 1993?

the consensus was that he was the best player ever... in 1993.

fpliii

01-07-2015, 03:32 PM

here's the problem with rapm flpiii.

let's say rapm determines that over the course of a season, mark price and reggie miller have a bigger offensive impact for their teams than jordan had for his team.

does that mean the bulls would be better replacing jordan with them instead?
No, as I've said from the start, you have to compare players in similar roles to one another. RAPM just tells you how well a player is playing in a given role.

MJ had a heavier load offensively than either, and played better defense than both combined. You have to compare him to players in similar roles. Even if they're not the same position, it makes more sense to compare MJ to two-way superstars than guys who played limited offensive roles.

I also have more confidence in the base regression giving you totals than the one giving offense/defense splits, but that's just my opinion.

3ball

01-07-2015, 03:37 PM

No, as I've said from the start, you have to compare players in similar roles to one another. RAPM just tells you how well a player is playing in a given role.

MJ had a heavier load offensively than either, and played better defense than both combined. You have to compare him to players in similar roles. Even if they're not the same position, it makes more sense to compare MJ to two-way superstars than guys who played limited offensive roles.

I also have more confidence in the base regression giving you totals than the one giving offense/defense splits, but that's just my opinion.
even if you compare players that have the same role, rapm data doesn't tell you anything.

let's say player A and player B have the same role on their respective teams, and RAPM data shows that player A had a bigger offensive impact on his team, than player B had for his team... this means nothing... for it to mean something, we would have to put player A on player B's team, to determine if the impact would be the same.

what if player A's team is 15-67, and the other team is 67-15?

fpliii

01-07-2015, 03:38 PM

Also, there was a Bob Ryan interview recently, in which he said he'd take Bill Walton over anyone to start a team (start listening at around 21:35):

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/2/1/3/213bf390ee2a72cf/86_086__Bob_Ryan___Scribe__My_Life_in_Sports___Bos ton_Celtics___Powered_by_CLNS_Radio.mp3?c_id=81385 39&expiration=1420663980&hwt=eb18bf49117602ce07abff7e6fa84c05

His reasoning is:

Name a great offensive big today, and Walton was a better defender. Name a great defensive big today, and Walton was a better offensive player.

I think that's part of what made MJ so great, as well as Hakeem during those three years (93-95, maybe one less maybe one more).

jlip

01-07-2015, 03:40 PM

quotes mean nothing - you will always have people saying "this player is having a great season"... "so and so is playing just as good as jordan"

but they are still the minority.

you want me to post the quotes for people praising jordan in 1993?

the consensus was that he was the best player ever... in 1993.

:facepalm

I was simply adding to the conversation. And No...The consensus was not that MJ was the best player ever in 1993. There were those making the claim that he was, but it was not the consensus.

fpliii

01-07-2015, 03:42 PM

even if you compare players that have the same role, rapm data doesn't tell you anything.

let's say player A and player B have the same role on their respective teams, and RAPM data shows that player A had a bigger offensive impact on his team, than player B had for his team... this means nothing... for it to mean something, we would have to put player A on player B's team, to determine if the impact would be the same.

what if player A's team is 15-67, and the other team is 67-15?
RAPM uses a regression to isolate a player's impact from his teammates/opponents faced in lineups. A lot of people are uncomfortable with this, but it predicts out-of-sample results with high success.

I don't think a player with a 15-67 would rate well in RAPM (since the dependent variable is scoring differential; a guy rating well in RAPM means the team is probably playing great with him on the floor, and even if there's a D-league supporting cast, they're not going to be a 15-67 team total if their star rates high in RAPM), but it is entirely possible for a guy on 35-40 win squads missing the playoffs to have more of an impact than a guy on 55-60 contenders, if both are playing in the same roles.

Real14

01-07-2015, 03:43 PM

if it weren't for Jordan then Ewing would win 93 finals mvp

3ball

01-07-2015, 03:46 PM

fpliii

01-07-2015, 03:48 PM

To elaborate, I think most have a D-League (aka replacement level squad) as somewhere between -10 and -15 SRS. Meaning that, it's an 8-15 win team. Let's split the difference and say 11-12.

Even in the WORST case, if a guy is playing at an MVP level (say +7 in scaled RAPM) for normal star minutes (36), that's still a team in the mid 20s.

Thing is though, nobody ever plays on a purely D-League lineup. Garnett had horrible teams, and even his squads weren't replacement level. So 15-67 vs 67-15 wouldn't realistically happen with players of similar caliber.

fpliii

01-07-2015, 03:50 PM

let's compare dominique to jordan... they're both in similar roles as wing players that are the primary go-to option for their teams.

the rapm data says dominique had a bigger offensive impact for his team in 1993, than jordan had for his team.

which may or may not be true... but does that mean dominique would have a bigger impact on the bulls than jordan had?

does that mean dominique is a better offensive player?

see, for this reason, the eye test is more reliable and will yield the better result when making decisions than rapm would.
That's not real RAPM data in 1993. It's a regression based on RAPM, from box score stats. The first season for which we have real RAPM is 96-97. The data doesn't exist to compute it beforehand.

Also, as I said before, there are separate calculations for total RAPM, and splits. The totals are calculated first, splits after. If guys are playing similar offensive roles, then from 96-97 on we can compare them in normalized offensive RAPM. If they're playing similar two-way roles, we can compare them in normalized total RAPM.

fpliii

01-07-2015, 03:52 PM

Here is the thread on APBRmetrics where J.E. (the owner of the site stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com, and same guy who does RPM for ESPN) discusses fake RAPM:

http://apbr.org/metrics/viewtopic.php?t=8067

He does not have any digitalized play-by-play (which you need to compute RAPM) prior to 00-01, and NOBODY has it before 96-97.

3ball

01-07-2015, 03:55 PM

rapm seems like it could work well for gambling purposes perhaps, or to help give guidance on optimal lineups for a coach to use, but i don't see how it has any value in determining if player A is better than player B.

the only way to determine whether one player is better than another by using rapm, is to have lineup
data for BOTH players on EACH team.

we'd need data for dominque as a bull, and jordan as a hawk.

so we'd need data for dominique in all the various bulls lineups against all the lineups from around the league, and data for jordan in all the various hawk lineups against all the lineups from around the league.
.

fpliii

01-07-2015, 03:58 PM

rapm seems like it could work well for gambling purposes perhaps, or to help give guidance on optimal lineups for a coach to use, but i don't see how it has any value in determining if player A is better than player B.

the only way to determine whether one player is better than another by using rapm, is to have lineup data for BOTH players on EACH team.

so we'd need data for dominique as a bull, and data for jordan as a hawk.
Well, it depends how you define better. It tells us how good guys are at impacting scoring margin in their roles for a season.

We don't need data for guys in other teams, since it uses a regression to isolate players from teammates, and opponents faced. Again though as I said, we do not have actual RAPM before 96-97. The numbers linked are fake RAPM from the 90s, which are just a box score calculation. EDIT: I would advise ignoring them completely (which I do).

3ball

01-07-2015, 04:08 PM

Well, it depends how you define better. It tells us how good guys are at impacting scoring margin in their roles for a season.

We don't need data for guys in other teams, since it uses a regression to isolate players from teammates, and opponents faced. Again though as I said, we do not have actual RAPM before 96-97. The numbers linked are fake RAPM from the 90s, which are just a box score calculation. EDIT: I would advise ignoring them completely (which I do).
i'm looking at the screamingacrossthecourt RAPM data for 1997, and it says christian laettner is the best player in the league, shaq had half the offensive impact of jordan, and terry mills had a GREATER offensive impact than jordan.

there are all kinds of problems with this data, and i think it all comes back to sample size... it is impossible to get reliable sample sizes with this methodology.

fpliii

01-07-2015, 04:17 PM

i'm looking at the screamingacrossthecourt RAPM data for 1997, and it says christian laettner is the best player in the league, shaq had half the offensive impact of jordan, and terry mills had a GREATER offensive impact than jordan.

there are all kinds of problems with this data, and i think it all comes back to sample size... it is impossible to get reliable sample sizes with this methodology.
1) 1997 is NPI (non-prior informed), probably better to look at his numbers for 98, 99, 00, and make sure it's the prior-informed list. NPI is okay, but doesn't have the same predictive value.

2) You need to compare players in similar roles. If a guy shows up towards the top and isn't a superstar, all it means is that he's doing a lot of things that don't show up in the box score that help his team. Laettner played around 3500 minutes combined between the season and playoffs which is enough to stabilize for a single season (2500), though ideally you want a guy who played 5000 minutes combined in a given year plus the previous year.

3) As I noted, there are separate regressions. The initial regression finds total RAPM, and a second regression can give you RAPM offense/defense splits.

fpliii

01-07-2015, 04:19 PM

Anyhow 3ball I hope these answers help. You can't compare MJ to Mills or Shaq to Laettner directly because they played different roles.

Have to run now, I'll check the thread later.

3ball

01-07-2015, 04:20 PM

as I said, we do not have actual RAPM before 96-97. The numbers linked are fake RAPM from the 90s, which are just a box score calculation. EDIT: I would advise ignoring them completely (which I do).

if the 1993 rapm data should be ignored completely, why are people itt using it to say hakeem was better than jordan?

We don't need data for guys in other teams, since it uses a regression to isolate players from teammates, and opponents faced.

how can you isolate a player, or determine a player's "stand-alone ability" (if you will), if a player's production (the data you track) is always based on playing alongside his teammates?

like, if a player averages 20ppg, that is based on him playing alongside the specific teammates that he played alongside... how can you somehow remove the teammates and still use the 20ppg?... the 20ppg was based on playing alongside those teammates.

can you go into a little more detail on how a regression solves this issue... because this is one of the main flaws i see (other than sample size).

3ball

01-07-2015, 04:28 PM

You can't compare MJ to Mills or Shaq to Laettner directly because they played different roles.

so when i see that 1997 rapm says scottie had a bigger offensive impact than jordan, i can't compare the two because they play "different roles".

and therein lies the rub... you can't compare ANYBODY with rapm, because everyone plays "different roles" on their respective teams.

as i said, rapm might have some use in gambling, or giving coaches guidance on what lineups to use, but it can't be used to say "player A is better than player B because he has a higher RAPM."

and for the record, i think using rapm to determine optimal lineups is a bad idea, and would indicate a coach doesn't understand basketball - but i can see the how RAPM would help lineup decisions from a theoretical standpoint.. i wouldn't hate a coach for looking at rapm-based lineups that an assistant prepared or something, only as guidance though.
.

fpliii

01-07-2015, 04:34 PM

if the 1993 rapm data should be ignored completely, why are people itt using it to say hakeem was better than jordan?[quote]
I ignore it completely, but I also ignore PER and win shares. Like those two, it's based on box scores. It has no use to me, but others are free to use it. Note that on that site (stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com), numbers through 1999-2000 are fake RAPM. From 00-01, those are xRAPM, which is similar to RPM on ESPN's site.

[quote]how can you isolate a player, or determine a player's "stand-alone ability" (if you will), if a player's production (the data you track) is always based on playing alongside his teammates?

can you go into a little more detail on how this is done... because this is one of the main flaws i see (other than sample size).
I broke down this specific process here:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10865413&postcount=79

Basically though, each player is treated as a variable, and the regression finds the best fit. This means you're not solving for one player, but all simultaneously.

Say you have two lineups:

x1+x2+x3+x4+x5-y1-y2-y3-y4-y5=z1
x6+x2+x3+x4+x7-y1-y6-y3-y7-y8=z2

x's are home players, y's are away players, z's are the points/possessions when they're on the floor. What you're doing is finding which values of x and y best predict the values of z, when testing in out-of-sample lineups. If various lineups/matchups are on the floor for more time, those observations are weighted more. There are generally 30-35 thousand between a season and playoffs.

We use matrix algebra to find the best estimate for the x's and y's to make all of the equations fit best. Using ridge regression, we'll end up with a very good fit, with scaled numbers differing by less than one standard deviation on average.

These x's and y's only tell us how well a player is playing in his given role. For instance, Kevin Garnett was asked to do different things in Minnesota than he was in Boston, especially after he got hurt. But some of his late-career seasons, from 2010-2013, rate favorably when compared to his peak seasons from say 2003-2005. Does this mean he was better when playing more of a specialist role? No, of course not. It just means that in that role, he was helping his teams as much or more than he was earlier in his career when he was a two-way superstar, anchoring offense and defense.

If you get five specialists, who are all RAPM leaders, and put them on the floor together, you're gonna be ****ed. None of them can create a shot most likely, and none of them will demand defensive attention.

This is why you have to compare guys in similar roles to one another in RAPM.

Compare two way superstars to superstars.

Compare big man defensive specialists to big man defensive specialists.

Compare 3-and-d guys to 3-and-d guys.

Compare pass-first PGs to pass-first PGs.

This is why the eye test is important. Not only will it give you an idea of how well a guy plays, but it will help you identify his role. RAPM is the only stat I use when evaluating players, but it's coupled with watching AS MUCH TAPE AS POSSIBLE. If you have know clue of what a guy is asked to do on a team, then the RAPM numbers are useless.

fpliii

01-07-2015, 04:40 PM

so when i see that 1997 rapm says scottie had a bigger offensive impact than jordan, i can't compare the two because they play "different roles".

and therein lies the rub... you can't compare ANYBODY with rapm, because everyone plays "different roles" on their respective teams... also, why can't we compare laettner to shaq?... i thought rapm isolated the player from teammates and opponents?

as i said, rapm might have some use in gambling, or giving coaches guidance on what lineups to use, but it can't be used to say "player A is better than player B because he has a higher RAPM."

and for the record, i think using rapm to determine optimal lineups is a bad idea, and would indicate a coach doesn't understand basketball - but i can see the how RAPM would help lineup decisions from a theoretical standpoint.. i wouldn't hate a coach for looking at rapm-based lineups that an assistant prepared or something, only as guidance though.
.
1) Well that's also an issue of it being NPI. If it was prior-informed, it would be more useful.

I think they are somewhat similar in terms of roles, but the total RAPM calculation is more reliable. I think Scottie rated pretty poorly in defensive RAPM, while Jordan looked awesome. Look at the totals and it makes more sense.

2) It isolates players from teammates, but you can't compare players in different roles. Look at Wilt with the Lakers under Sharman. He was playing a super defensive specialist role. But it doesn't mean that's all he was capable of those seasons. So you can't compare him to Kareem directly who was asked to anchor both his offense and his defense. Would Wilt have been able to do the same thing? Maybe, but if RAPM existed, it wouldn't help us here. It would just tell us that Wilt was playing his role better than Kareem was his.

3) RAPM doesn't tell us who is more talented, it just tells us who is better at impacting scoring margin, with both guys in their current roles. Gamblers use it a ton, front offices do in putting teams together. A coach can't look at it and just pick the best 5 RAPM guys, because you need to have different functional requirements n your lineup. i.e. you can't have 5 defensive specialists, but no ball-handlers.

RAPM is a valuable tool in predicting outcomes, player evaluations, and lineup optimization, as long as role is taken into account. Without roles, RAPM is useless.

3ball

01-07-2015, 04:53 PM

[QUOTE=3ball]if the 1993 rapm data should be ignored completely, why are people itt using it to say hakeem was better than jordan?[quote]
I ignore it completely, but I also ignore PER and win shares. Like those two, it's based on box scores. It has no use to me, but others are free to use it. Note that on that site (stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com), numbers through 1999-2000 are fake RAPM. From 00-01, those are xRAPM, which is similar to RPM on ESPN's site.

I broke down this specific process here:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10865413&postcount=79

Basically though, each player is treated as a variable, and the regression finds the best fit. This means you're not solving for one player, but all simultaneously.

Say you have two lineups:

x1+x2+x3+x4+x5-y1-y2-y3-y4-y5=z1
x6+x2+x3+x4+x7-y1-y6-y3-y7-y8=z2

x's are home players, y's are away players, z's are the points/possessions when they're on the floor. What you're doing is finding which values of x and y best predict the values of z, when testing in out-of-sample lineups. If various lineups/matchups are on the floor for more time, those observations are weighted more. There are generally 30-35 thousand between a season and playoffs.

We use matrix algebra to find the best estimate for the x's and y's to make all of the equations fit best. Using ridge regression, we'll end up with a very good fit, with scaled numbers differing by less than one standard deviation on average.

These x's and y's only tell us how well a player is playing in his given role. For instance, Kevin Garnett was asked to do different things in Minnesota than he was in Boston, especially after he got hurt. But some of his late-career seasons, from 2010-2013, rate favorably when compared to his peak seasons from say 2003-2005. Does this mean he was better when playing more of a specialist role? No, of course not. It just means that in that role, he was helping his teams as much or more than he was earlier in his career when he was a two-way superstar, anchoring offense and defense.

If you get five specialists, who are all RAPM leaders, and put them on the floor together, you're gonna be ****ed. None of them can create a shot most likely, and none of them will demand defensive attention.

This is why you have to compare guys in similar roles to one another in RAPM.

Compare two way superstars to superstars.

Compare big man defensive specialists to big man defensive specialists.

Compare 3-and-d guys to 3-and-d guys.

Compare pass-first PGs to pass-first PGs.

This is why the eye test is important. Not only will it give you an idea of how well a guy plays, but it will help you identify his role. RAPM is the only stat I use when evaluating players, but it's coupled with watching AS MUCH TAPE AS POSSIBLE. If you have know clue of what a guy is asked to do on a team, then the RAPM numbers are useless.

i appreciate you explaining rapm itt.

but if effective comparison of the rapm stats of two players depends on those two players playing the same role, then rapm can't be used to compare two players, since no two players play the same role for their teams.

also, garnett's predictive values when playing with teammates on OTHER teams (like the bobcats or something) are based on the values he put up alongside his actual teammates... so i don't see how the rapm data could be representative of what his impact would be if he were on ANY team - the predictive values are still based on what he did alongside his own teammates.

and if rapm predicts what garnett would do on ANY team, then why is this a yearly stat like an income statement, instead of an ongoing stat that can be measured at any time like a temperature or a balance sheet?... like, why does 1997 rapm show shaq as having half the offensive impact he had in 1998?... shouldn't such a stat remain pretty stable over the years?.. this goes back to the sample size problem from what i can see.
.

fpliii

01-07-2015, 05:03 PM

1) Role doesn't need to be identical, just similar. The more similar the roles two players have, the more valid the comparison is.

2) It works to project him in other lineups assuming he plays the same role. RAPM removes the effect of teammates, but it won't tell you how a guy would play if a different team needs him to play a different role.

3) Single season NPI RAPM (which is all we have for 97) is pretty stable, but the offense defense splits are not. As I mentioned, it's a separate regression. The first season for which prior informed (NPI means non-prior informed, or meaning it doesn't use previous season data to smooth out results) RAPM exists is 98. So when comparing 98 to 99 with priors (which means instead of telling the regression to try fitting everyone around 0, it fits players based on the previous season first, in hopes of smaller error), if there is a big difference, it's probably valid.

3ball

01-07-2015, 05:07 PM

Without roles, RAPM is useless.

"similar" roles is very subjective criteria that will differ a lot among whoever is analyzing it

and if "similar roles" are crucial to comparing rapm's of players, then rapm is useless when it comes to comparing players, since no two players play the same role.

i.e. you could never compare jordan's rapm to lebron's, because those guys play completely different roles for their teams... one is a ball-dominating point guard, and the other is an off-ball assassin.... two completely different roles.. i don't see how rapm could apply in comparing these two players.

how can the stat be a measure of the scoring margin impact of a player on ANY team, if the specific role that the player has within his OWN team is crucial to any comparison?
.

fpliii

01-07-2015, 05:13 PM

"similar" roles is very subjective criteria will differ a lot among whoever is analyzing it

and if "similar roles" are crucial to comparing rapm's of players, then rapm is useless when it comes to comparing players, since no two players play the same role.

i.e. you could never compare jordan's rapm to lebron's, because those guys play completely different roles for their teams... one is a ball-dominating point guard, and the other is an off-ball assassin.... two completely different roles.. i don't see how rapm could apply in comparing these two players.

how can the stat be a measure of the scoring margin impact of a player on ANY team, if the specific role that the player has within his own team is crucial to any comparison?
That's why there's a lot of research being put into classifying players by their roles on the floor. We don't have any data during MJ's prime anyway, but a comparison to Kobe might make more sense.

Problem is, if you have too many classification groups, you'll overfit to the data, and eliminate the use of the regression. But grouping two-way wing superstars isn't a huge problem.

fpliii

01-07-2015, 05:15 PM

how can the stat be a measure of the scoring margin impact of a player on ANY team, if the specific role that the player has within his OWN team is crucial to any comparison?
.
Because of the assumption that he'd be playing a similar role in another team. The more different the roles, the less valid the comparison. No stat at all is valid if you compare players who are playing drastically different roles.

3ball

01-07-2015, 05:18 PM

like i have just as much of a problem not being able to compare shaq and laettner's rapm because "they don't play the same roles", as i do comparing shaq and zo - because they ALSO don't play the same roles.
.

3ball

01-07-2015, 05:29 PM

Because of the assumption that he'd be playing a similar role in another team.

but this doesn't happen when players switch teams and have different teammates.

look at garnett when he went to the celtics... as you mentioned, his role changed drastically around different teammates and system...

if we compared the 2005 garnett to the 2010 garnett, their rapm's would not be comparable - one looks better than the other, yet they are the same player.

fpliii

01-07-2015, 05:39 PM

shaq and zo

2005 garnett to the 2010 garnett
Shaq and Zo isn't a perfect comparison, but it's not as bad as say comparing one to a ball-handler or a 3-and-d wing. Both were dominant bigs asked to do a ton on both ends of the floor. Not identical playstyles, but you can put them in the same group because they were similar enough.

05 and 10 KG isn't great, but there's not a huge difference between say 07 KG and 08 KG (other than less opportunity to play with the ball, and asked to box out instead of crash defensive boards). RAPM actually predicted a lot of Boston's success in 08, before the fact. This is how a lot of the betting syndicates operate as well.

I mean at this point I have no problem agreeing to disagree. Just find groups of players you're comfortable comparing, and compare within those clusters. If you don't have groups with which you're comfortable, maybe RAPM isn't for you. I just wanted to explain why it is of use to me personally.

3ball

01-07-2015, 06:27 PM

[QUOTE=flpiii]

These x's and y's only tell us how well a player is playing in his given role. For instance, Kevin Garnett was asked to do different things in Minnesota than he was in Boston, especially after he got hurt. But some of his late-career seasons, from 2010-2013, rate favorably when compared to his peak seasons from say 2003-2005. Does this mean he was better when playing more of a specialist role? No, of course not. It just means that in that role, he was helping his teams as much or more than he was earlier in his career when he was a two-way superstar, anchoring offense and defense.

this is why rapm can't be used to compare one player to another.

we can't compare garnett's rapm from 2005 to his rapm from 2010 because his role changed so drastically, and we can't compare rapms of players with different roles... :confusedshrug:... yet they are the same player..

also, if laettner and shaq can't be compared because they have different roles, than zo and shaq can't be compared because they ALSO have different roles... even if the difference seems smaller, it's still different, which compromises the rapm stat...

and i haven't seen any rapm guidelines on exactly HOW different the player's role is allowed to be, which is necessary, because no two players will ever have the exact same role, whether the supporting casts are the same or different.

it's intuitive that one player's role when surrounded by a specific group of players, will always be different from another player's role when surrounded by those same group of players... garnett's role on say, the sacramento kings isn't going to be the same as demarcus cousins... ever.. so their rapms aren't comparable... and on down the line - no two players will ever play the "same role" (whatever that means - has yet to be defined).

fpliii

01-07-2015, 06:32 PM

and i haven't seen any rapm guidelines on exactly HOW different the player's role is allowed to be, which is necessary, because no two players will ever have the exact same role, whether the supporting casts are the same or different.
As I said, it's subjective. :confusedshrug: If you feel two players' roles are similar, compare them. If not, you don't have to do so.

No two players will ever play exactly the same way, but some groups are similar (two-way wing superstars, defensive specialist bigs, pass-first PGs, etc.). Just think about how you'd put together a team. I don't know what to tell you, again no problem agreeing to disagree if you don't feel comfortable with the comparisons.

I'm trying to put together my own player classifications (based on shot zone distrubtion, wingspan/standing reach, and some other data) which should be something more concrete, I'll share my results with you when I make more progress.

3ball

01-07-2015, 06:49 PM

As I said, it's subjective. :confusedshrug: If you feel two players' roles are similar, compare them. If not, you don't have to do so.

No two players will ever play exactly the same way, but some groups are similar (two-way wing superstars, defensive specialist bigs, pass-first PGs, etc.). Just think about how you'd put together a team. I don't know what to tell you, again no problem agreeing to disagree if you don't feel comfortable with the comparisons.

I'm trying to put together my own player classifications (based on shot zone distrubtion, wingspan/standing reach, and some other data) which should be something more concrete, I'll share my results with you when I make more progress.
obviously, we can't compare shaq and laettner, because even though they are both starting bigs, they play "different roles".

but if playing different roles ruins the integrity of a rapm comparison between two players, then i can't find one viable comparison of two players to make as i'm looking up and down this rapm list.

again, i can see the value in rapm as a guidance on lineup decisions.... as long as the coach doesn't take the differences in rapm at face value, and instead tries to come up with/understand/explain the EXACT reasons behind the differences - otherwise he doesn't really understand his team and is just going by numbers, which is a suboptimal approach.

i like your idea however of trying to classify the players properly for better rapm analysis and it looks like you are considering some out-of-the-box methods... that's the type of thinking and approach that gets results and allows us to learn more about the game..

outside the box bruh... i'll keep my eye open for your posts/results of your analysis... :cheers:
.

mehyaM24

01-07-2015, 06:55 PM

Interesting quotes about Hakeem's rank in '93

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8517970&postcount=37
thank you for these. along with fpliii's set of quotes i had no idea hakeem trained at golds gym. it makes sense though - as he did come back with a better center of gravity and was quicker on his feet defensively.

i will be making my 1992, 1996 and 1997 MVP and best player threads shortly. glad you guys enjoyed this topic :rockon:

3ball

01-07-2015, 07:01 PM

thank you for these. along with fpliii's set of quotes i had no idea hakeem trained at golds gym. it makes sense though - as he did come back with a better center of gravity and was quicker on his feet defensively.

i will be making my 1992, 1996 and 1997 MVP and best player threads shortly. glad you guys enjoyed this topic :rockon:
Jordan, Jordan, and Jordan again... don't bother waste your time.

it should be reiterated that flpiii advised us to ignore previous rapm data:

Again though as I said, we do not have actual RAPM before 96-97. The numbers linked are fake RAPM from the 90s, which are just a box score calculation. EDIT: I would advise ignoring them completely (which I do).

mehyaM24

01-07-2015, 07:07 PM

Jordan, Jordan, and Jordan again... don't bother waste your time.

it should be reiterated that flpiii advised us to ignore previous rapm data:

its better than nothing, something fpliii ALSO said. this alternate version of rapm is simply better than all advanced metrics as it takes EVERYTHING into account (or mostly everything).

enjoy my other threads, bud - you might be in for quite a few surprises :cheers:

Shep

01-07-2015, 07:44 PM

:rockon:

im not a big fan of hakeem, but 1993-1995 was his league. got to call it like i see it.

higher RAPM/impact than jordan in 1993, just a worse team. hakeem's peak was DEFINITELY in 1993, 1994 and 1995. you cannot dispute the facts, my friend.
I don't care for this RAPM. I care for FACTS and FACTS state Jordan's peak was 1993 and Olajuwon's peak was 1995.

Shep

01-07-2015, 07:51 PM

He was more skilled offensively in 95 maybe, but his defense wasn't the same, and he lost some athleticism. Additionally, he was suffering from anemia (as was Maxwell), so he wasn't 100% physically that season.

93 and 94 were his best two seasons, pretty clearly IMO.
1993 would have been his best season if he did anything of worth in the playoffs, instead he didn't do jack shit - getting extended to a fifth and final game by a .500 team and losing in 7 in the second round, where as he probably had the best individual playoff run in NBA history in 1995 making it an easy decision: 1995, 1994, 1993 - most peak seasons in order.

fpliii

01-07-2015, 07:54 PM

1993 would have been his best season if he did anything of worth in the playoffs, instead he didn't do jack shit - getting extended to a fifth and final game by a .500 team and losing in 7 in the second round, where as he probably had the best individual playoff run in NBA history in 1995 making it an easy decision: 1995, 1994, 1993 - most peak seasons in order.
Game 7 against Seattle was officiated terribly. Also, in 93 and 96, he was triple teamed nearly every possession.

mehyaM24

01-07-2015, 08:03 PM

I don't care for this RAPM. I care for FACTS and FACTS state Jordan's peak was 1993 and Olajuwon's peak was 1995.
i care about rapm, as do most that use stats profusely. there are NO facts that say jordan was a better player aside from him winning a title with a BETTER TEAM. the "facts" actually show hakeem and robinson were the most efficient and dominant players throughout the regular season and playoffs.

i will expand on this in my other threads. keep in touch.

3ball

01-07-2015, 08:36 PM

its better than nothing, something fpliii ALSO said. this alternate version of rapm is simply better than all advanced metrics as it takes EVERYTHING into account (or mostly everything).

enjoy my other threads, bud - you might be in for quite a few surprises :cheers:
actually, the pre-1997 data is garbage, which is why flpiii told us to ignore it - the data assumes that a player's impact on one team will be exactly the same as his impact on another team with totally different teammates...

which is ridiculous..

to accurately compare the rapms of say, dominique and jordan, we need data for dominique as a bull, in all the different bulls lineups, and also for jordan as a hawk.... THEN we can compare the rapm data - of course, this is impossible, because jordan never played for the hawks and dominique never played for the bulls, so we don't have any such data...

but flpiii claims the new rapm data from 1997 onwards DOES account for different teammates by using a regression method to come up with predictive values of how these guys WOULD play with the other teammates - this regression is supposed to isolate the players from teammates and opposition, so we have a "stand-alone" value of rapm for each player (a measure of the player's impact regardless of teammates or opponent, a true rapm).

however, i pointed out how even the predictive values don't work in gauging the impact of a player if he were on a different team... the predictive values are still based on how the player performed with their current, actual teammates and within their current, actual system.

so we can never know how big dominique's impact would be on the bulls or any other team (the definition of rapm), because dominique never played on the bulls - and the predictive values of how he WOULD play as a bull are based on how he played as a hawk, so they are inaccurate.

in addition to rapm not being able to predict a player's impact if they had different teammates, a rapm comparison of players can only work if the players have the same roles on their teams... for this reason, a guy like christian laettner, who had the highest RAPM in 1997, can't be compared to Shaq, because even though both are starting bigs, they play "different roles".

so naturally, if players need to play the same roles to compare rapm, then NO two players can be compared, because no two players play the same role - i.e. similar to laettner, zo doesn't play the same role as shaq either, so you can't compare their rapms.

3ball

01-07-2015, 08:40 PM

rapm is super-flawed though - me and flpiii were just discussing it.

rapm can't accurately measure a player's impact on another team with different teammates and a different system, because the predictive values in rapm are still based on how the player performed with his OWN teammates and within his own team's system.

we will never have data for how big paul george's impact would be with the 1988 Bulls, because paul george never played with the bulls so we don't have data of how he would play with those teammates and within that system... and we have no accurate way of predicting how he would play with different teammates.

also, the rapm of two players can't be compared unless they play the same role within their team - so christian laettner, the 1997 rapm leader, can't be compared to shaq, because they don't play the same role.. this underscores another flaw with rapm - NO two players play the same role - i.e. you can't compare zo's rapm to shaq's either, because they play different roles... ditto for scottie and dominique - different roles, so rapm can't be used to compare..

then when you compare the rapm of players across different eras, there are the rule changes and totally different playing environment, which rapm can't ever consider.

in short, while rapm TRIES to assess the impact a player would have on a different team, with different teammates, within a different system, and in a different era... it can't.

juju151111

01-07-2015, 09:17 PM

I don't care for this RAPM. I care for FACTS and FACTS state Jordan's peak was 1993 and Olajuwon's peak was 1995.
Mj peak was 1990 or 91.

Odinn

01-07-2015, 09:51 PM

Number-wise; Chuck and Hakeem were pretty identical for me.
Chuck 25.6 ppg / 12.2 rpg / 5.1 apg / 1.6 spg / 1.0 bpg / 31.8 eff
Hakeem 26.1 ppg / 13.0 rpg / 3.5 apg / 1.8 spg / 4.2 bpg / 34.7 eff

Jordan was 3-time winner at the time. His numbers in 92-93 aren't on par with his earlier mvp winning seasons. And the most important thing about him being the 3rd wheel on the mvp race, Bulls won 10 less games compared to the previous season.

When we get back to Barkley vs. Olajuwon, sure Olajuwon was the better defensive player. Overall, I'd probably take Hakeem over Sir. But the mvp awards truly rely on a story. Although, before Sir's arrival the Suns weren't suckers, but Chuck led them to the highest winning pct. And it was his first season in Phoenix. That's the thing what you expect from an mvp.

Like I said, Hakeem was the better player in 1992-93 between him and Sir. But Barkley's case for MVP was more solid with given facts. I'd vote for Hakeem and I'd take Hakeem over Barkley. But I can not say Sir didn't deserve his mvp.

Lastly, it wasn't the best regular season of MJ's career. But at the end of the season, he had proven why he was the best in the game. My overall (rs + po) ranking for 1992-93 would be like this;

1. Jordan
2. Olajuwon
3. Barkley

Shep

01-07-2015, 10:56 PM

Game 7 against Seattle was officiated terribly. Also, in 93 and 96, he was triple teamed nearly every possession.
:cry:

i care about rapm, as do most that use stats profusely. there are NO facts that say jordan was a better player aside from him winning a title with a BETTER TEAM. the "facts" actually show hakeem and robinson were the most efficient and dominant players throughout the regular season and playoffs.
You are a stat geek, say no more. The EYE test is the true indicator of who was the best player. This RAPM bullshit and PER and trash like that is created for those who can't distinguish who was the better player through watching actual footage. I however can distinguish who was the better player and the better player was Jordan by a wide margin.

i will expand on this in my other threads. keep in touch.
I will keep in touch, but only for the pure hilarity of your justification of your pathetic ranking system.

Mj peak was 1990 or 91.
Actually it was 1993, followed by 1991.

SexSymbol

01-07-2015, 10:58 PM

the stats and impact suggest otherwise, my friend. i dont have an issue with your conclusion though - jordan was great in the finals. i shutter to think what hakeem would have done to phoenix's frontline :eek:
doesn't matter at all.
Jordan had great stats

3ball

01-08-2015, 07:54 AM

tl;dr - RAPM isolates player impact, taking into account quality of teammates and opponents. It's fine, as long as you note that a player's impact is tied to his role (so only players in similar roles should compared), and throw out observations over a small sample. It's impossible to get perfect estimates, but again, this is a process universally accepted in economics, science, and the like based on how precise it is. The error is ridiculously small, with a RMSE (SD of population as a whole) of around +/- .5 SDs of the coefficients. It's pretty much the highest quality estimate of player impact out there, which is why high-leverage gamblers and front offices of successful/smart teams use it as faithfully and often as they do (and it's stood the test of time; the original APM was released in 02 by Jeff Sagarin and Wayne Winston, the latter of whom worked for the Mavs for around a decade).

when you say RAPM isolates a player's impact on scoring margin - it only truly measures a player's impact on scoring margin alongside the various lineups on his own team - this value can subsequently be used as an approximation for what the player's impact on scoring margin would be on another team in a similar role, but never the same role (same teammates, same system), so it's far from exact.

RAPM couldn't predict carmelo's performance this season under the new management and coaching.. and previous RAPM data is not reliable in predicting love's current and future RAPM with the Cavs... coaching/system issues and player chemistry issues hurt RAPM's ability to predict how a player would play on another team, so i'm not sure you can say "RAPM isolates a player's impact" and just stop right there - i think you need to add "within the role a player plays on his own team".

since RAPM only measures the impact a player has alongside his own teammates, and not the impact a player would have on ANY team, RAPM is the no different from PER or most other stats - it measures what the player does on his team, against other teams.

also, one thing i think that someone with RAPM knowledge might miss, is that a cohesive team using superior strategy will perform at a higher level without it's star, than a less cohesive team with lesser strategy would without THEIR star.. in jordan's case, his teams operated pretty well without him (or an inside presence or shot-blocker for that matter) because of superior strategy and a championship culture - so the fact that MJ was still able to add a top 5 RAPM on top of that, is more remarkable than the RAPM of a guy playing with a bunch of alleged scrubs who are "D-League" without him.

so Jordan's very high RAPM on teams using optimal strategy that could cope without him, is more impressive than Lebron's RAPM on crappy teams that sucked without him.

Also, the Bulls ability without Jordan or a shot blocker shows how much better their superior their strategy was, how optimal the triangle offense was for the playing environment in that era, and how good the TEAM had gotten at the system... it's a testament to Jordan's skills, that he could achieve GOAT production (scoring and assists) within such an optimal system, without taking anything away from his teammates, as evidenced by his very high RAPM.

Btw, as other posters have noted, by 1993 after two championships, Jordan wasn't as motivated or trying to beat guys as badly as previous seasons due to mental fatigue... here's the bulls team talking about MJ's lost "zeal" for the game in 1993... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ_jNwyNu0Q&t=4m20s
.

chocolatethunder

01-08-2015, 04:55 PM

imo was hakeem. people confuse his peak for 1994 and 1995, but they forget about the 1993 season. hakeem did everything that year as well, winning big games, while playing big on the big stage. in the regular season, hakeem averaged 26 PTS /13 REB /4 AST /4 BLK on 53% FG.

great numbers right? look at the playoffs. hakeem in an elimination game against the clipers put up 31/21/7/3/3. :eek:

in the playoffs overall, hakeem averaged an insane 26/14/5/5. he led his team to the semi finals and the rockets were ONE game away from the conference finals to face the suns had it not been for MULTIPLE bad calls. hakeem still had 23/17/9 though.

getting back to the mvp though - he was second in MVP voting, above jordan, and should have been MVP - but was without question, arguably the best player in the league.

RAPM suggests he and david robinson were the most efficient AND dominant players that season:
http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/1993.html
I'm assuming that you weren't alive to see that season. I was 20-21. I can tell you for certain, regardless of which stats you're using to support your position, that Jordan was the best player in the league until he retired and then when he came back he was the best until he retired again. The prevailing sentiment was that there was Jordan and everyone else and since he had won MVP in 88 and 91-92, there were just giving it to the second best player. You can use whichever stats that you'd like but he was by far the best player in the league. Barkley, Malone, Robinson, Hakeem and others had their best seasons during Jordan's career and some incredible years but he was better like it or not. Not only were his stats incredible but with the game on the line there's never been a better player.

juju151111

01-08-2015, 05:17 PM

:cry:

You are a stat geek, say no more. The EYE test is the true indicator of who was the best player. This RAPM bullshit and PER and trash like that is created for those who can't distinguish who was the better player through watching actual footage. I however can distinguish who was the better player and the better player was Jordan by a wide margin.

I will keep in touch, but only for the pure hilarity of your justification of your pathetic ranking system.

Actually it was 1993, followed by 1991.
No it's not that's when he won a championship and played weak Sums defense in the finals. Mj peak is 1990 or 91. He was a better player then physically. He had better stamina,quicker, and peak physically. Mj slowed down slightly in 93. You claim you use the eye test, yet you just seem to go by whatever years that player won championship.

SamuraiSWISH

01-08-2015, 06:57 PM

Shep

01-09-2015, 12:35 AM

No it's not that's when he won a championship and played weak Sums defense in the finals. Mj peak is 1990 or 91. He was a better player then physically. He had better stamina,quicker, and peak physically. Mj slowed down slightly in 93. You claim you use the eye test, yet you just seem to go by whatever years that player won championship.
That "weak Sums defense" got them past 55 win Seattle, and 49 win San Antonio in the Playoffs to make the NBA Finals. Even without the Finals in which Jordan averaged 41ppg, 9rpg, 6apg, 2spg, and 1bpg he still managed 32/6/6/2/1 including sweeps of 43 win Atlanta, and 54 win Cleveland, and 4-2 win over 60 win New York without home court advantage. The proof is right there for you all you have to do is watch, but all you seem to be worried about is how high someone can jump, or how fast they can run :hammerhead:

juju151111

01-09-2015, 01:06 AM

That "weak Sums defense" got them past 55 win Seattle, and 49 win San Antonio in the Playoffs to make the NBA Finals. Even without the Finals in which Jordan averaged 41ppg, 9rpg, 6apg, 2spg, and 1bpg he still managed 32/6/6/2/1 including sweeps of 43 win Atlanta, and 54 win Cleveland, and 4-2 win over 60 win New York without home court advantage. The proof is right there for you all you have to do is watch, but all you seem to be worried about is how high someone can jump, or how fast they can run :hammerhead:
What does Sun's defense being weak have to do with who they beat? Phx Sun's was horrible defensively, but yet was competing with the spurs and winning a lot of games in the Nash era. The PhD Sun's sucked ass on defense in 93. What was Mj shooting % without the finals because he was injured midway through Cavs series and struggled through the Knicks series.

No I'm not worried about those things. It's the fact you keep using the word "Peak" which means MJ has never been better and I disagree. He was better in 90 and 91. Even in 92 he was definitely great but not his peak.

Shep

01-09-2015, 01:57 AM

What does Sun's defense being weak have to do with who they beat? Phx Sun's was horrible defensively, but yet was competing with the spurs and winning a lot of games in the Nash era. The PhD Sun's sucked ass on defense in 93. What was Mj shooting % without the finals because he was injured midway through Cavs series and struggled through the Knicks series.

No I'm not worried about those things. It's the fact you keep using the word "Peak" which means MJ has never been better and I disagree. He was better in 90 and 91. Even in 92 he was definitely great but not his peak.
Seems to me that you are confusing pace with defense. Just because you are a fast team does not mean you are a poor defensive team. You simply cannot be as successful at the 1993 Suns were and be a poor defensive team. I would say they were at above average level.

That is fine that you disagree with me stating that 1993 was his peak, as long as you are happy being wrong in this instance. 1993 is his most peak year, followed by 1991.

juju151111

01-09-2015, 02:12 AM

Seems to me that you are confusing pace with defense. Just because you are a fast team does not mean you are a poor defensive team. You simply cannot be as successful at the 1993 Suns were and be a poor defensive team. I would say they were at above average level.

That is fine that you disagree with me stating that 1993 was his peak, as long as you are happy being wrong in this instance. 1993 is his most peak year, followed by 1991.
The 00s Sun's won 61 gms and made it to the wcf with horrible defense and had the same drating has the 93 suns. Your a dummy and your wrong

Shep

01-09-2015, 02:48 AM

The 00s Sun's won 61 gms and made it to the wcf with horrible defense and had the same drating has the 93 suns. Your a dummy and your wrong
They didn't have the best defense in the league but they weren't horrible at all. 1993 was MJ's peak, if you watched games you would understand why.

Odinn

01-09-2015, 05:07 AM

MJ's peak physically was the 1990 season. Not strength wise, but everything else began to decline. Hops, quickness, and speed.

Jordan's 1993 "stats" are being argued as poor that season? WTF?

He put up 33 ppg (50% FG, 35% 3PT), 7 rpg, 6 apg, 3 spg ... this is bad? All while the league's COACHES voted him as the best defensive player that season even over Hakeem.

Let that marinate.
Compared to 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90, there is not much to argue 1992-93 being better than any of them.

Even 1990-91 was better than 1992-93 IMO.
1.1 less ppg and 0.7 less rpg, but his efficiency was way better. Also he averaged 2.3 less mpg. When you look at PER36 stats, 1990-91 is the better one. More ppg, more apg, more bpg, less tpg on a better efficiency.

If you look at his overall averages from 1986-87 to 1992-93, then return back to just 1992-93, you'll see.

---

I wasn't watching closely back then. And I couldn't find an article about coaches picking MJ over Hakeem as the best defensive player in 1992-93. But Hakeem got 73 votes out of 98 for the DPoY. And MJ got 9.

SamuraiSWISH

01-09-2015, 05:27 AM

I wasn't watching closely back then. And I couldn't find an article about coaches picking MJ over Hakeem as the best defensive player in 1992-93. But Hakeem got 73 votes out of 98 for the DPoY. And MJ got 9.
Clearly.

You're making MJ's '93 season to sound like a visible step down statistically. It wasn't. Let alone significantly a down grade from his previous MVP seasons.

33/6/7/3 is MVP numbers, period. In virtually any season you drop him in that's getting it done. On great efficiency too. And even though his team under performed ... he still led them to 57 wins, and a 3rd straight championship. And unlike Chuck, MJ was one of the league's best defenders, and the best perimeter defender easily.

I'd also argue the 1993 NBA is a more difficult defensive climate than the 1987, and 1988 seasons.

People bust nuts for McGrady's 2003, Kobe's 2006, and Wade's 2009. 1993 MJ put up scoring numbers on par with McGrady and Kobe. And all around numbers on par with Wade.

While being a significantly better defender than all of those guys, including Wade, yet it's being talked about like some massive drop off.

:biggums:

Odinn

01-09-2015, 05:44 AM

You clearly stick to your arguments, because I'm comparing MJ's numbers to once again his own numbers. Did you see me saying MJ's numbers in 1992-93 aren't MVP caliber? I just stated that his numbers got a little step back.
Or did NOT you see me saying MJ was the best?
You should reread my 1st post on this thread without being biased. And without getting sidetracked by other names.

If you will me give a highly sensitive (close to stan grade) respond once again, I won't even bother responding back.

SamuraiSWISH

01-09-2015, 06:47 AM

You should reread my 1st post on this thread without being biased. And without getting sidetracked by other names.
For sure, that's probably my bad, bro. I'm just saying I don't think '93 MJ fell off. I actually think his regular season was better than the two previous seasons. It's a slept on season for both the team, because of the regular season record, and Jordan. The Bulls needed him to produce because Pippen, and Grant had off years. There was a certain level of fatigue there as well for everyone. But especially for Jordan, and Pippen following the Dream Team.

OldSchoolBBall

01-09-2015, 10:28 AM

And I couldn't find an article about coaches picking MJ over Hakeem as the best defensive player in 1992-93

There was no article to my knowledge, but it was mentioned by Hubie Brown during a Bulls game broadcast in 1993. The game is on youtube, though I forget exactly which game it was. Maybe Golden State?

juju151111

01-09-2015, 10:40 AM

They didn't have the best defense in the league but they weren't horrible at all. 1993 was MJ's peak, if you watched games you would understand why.
I watched the games and his peak was 90 or 91.

juju151111

01-09-2015, 10:41 AM

Compared to 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90, there is not much to argue 1992-93 being better than any of them.

Even 1990-91 was better than 1992-93 IMO.
1.1 less ppg and 0.7 less rpg, but his efficiency was way better. Also he averaged 2.3 less mpg. When you look at PER36 stats, 1990-91 is the better one. More ppg, more apg, more bpg, less tpg on a better efficiency.

If you look at his overall averages from 1986-87 to 1992-93, then return back to just 1992-93, you'll see.

---

I wasn't watching closely back then. And I couldn't find an article about coaches picking MJ over Hakeem as the best defensive player in 1992-93. But Hakeem got 73 votes out of 98 for the DPoY. And MJ got 9.
DA Realist posted the Video of when the coaches pick Mj for DPOTY years ago. Mm was just that good

Shep

01-09-2015, 04:32 PM

I watched the games and his peak was 90 or 91.
Then the only other outcome of this situation is that you must be severely lacking in brain cells

juju151111

01-09-2015, 07:55 PM

Then the only other outcome of this situation is that you must be severely lacking in brain cells
Go get glasses n stop smoking crack

Da_Realist

01-10-2015, 12:27 AM

There was no article to my knowledge, but it was mentioned by Hubie Brown during a Bulls game broadcast in 1993. The game is on youtube, though I forget exactly which game it was. Maybe Golden State?

It was in the playoffs, Game 2 CHI vs NYK. Just before halftime. I couldn't find the TNT feed on youtube but Hubie said, "You know, I... maybe some of the fans out there missed the voting by the coaches. Hakeem Olajuwon was voted by the media the Defensive Player of the Year. The coaches voted...the maximum score was 52, Michael Jordan had 51 as the number one player in the league and the second guy was Olajuwon at 37. That's the respect that Michael has that he just does not only play one end of the floor. He's also the premier defensive guy."

There was another game this was mentioned but I forgot which one.

Da_Realist

01-10-2015, 12:28 AM

And this guy ^^ came in third in MVP voting. Weak league, right OP?

fpliii

01-10-2015, 12:48 AM

MJ was a terrific defender, I think he's underrated in that regard actually. But that's asinine logic.

Maximum points was 52, since you can't vote for your own players. Two points for first team votes, one point for second team votes. There are also two guard positions (no distinction between PG and SG). So who got first team votes at center?

16 Hakeem
7 Robinson
2 Mutombo
1 Mourning
1 Ewing

What about at guard?

25 Jordan
10 Dumars
4 Majerle
4 Starks
4 Blaylock
3 Stockton
1 McMillan
1 Payton
1 Harper
1 Williams

So Hakeem was voted as the best defensive center by 16/26 coaches (since, again, you cant vote for your own player), with the other four guys getting first team votes all being unanimous top 10 defensive players all-time in their primes. On the other hand, Jordan is voted by 25/27 coaches as a top two defensive guard, against competition that pales in comparison?

:oldlol:

I have no words. Don't bother responding either since there's no reason for me to reply, this is a farce. MJ is a monster and was either the best or second best player in the league that season without question. But to distort logic to suit your argument/agenda? C'mon now.

EDIT: Just to be clear, my only issue is with people using the All-Defensive vote to suggest MJ was the better defender that season, and make it seem as if it's an open-and-shut case for that reason. I have no problem with people saying he was the best/a top 2 guard defensively that season, or all-time (and would agree with both claims).

Da_Realist

01-10-2015, 01:40 AM

3ball

01-10-2015, 03:22 AM

flpiii, do you realize that there was ZERO debate in 1993 who the best player was?

there wasn't a debate like there usually is with today's players... in 1993, EVERYONE knew jordan was the best player... anyone saying otherwise at the time was looked at like they should be in an insane asylum... and it wasn't like anyone had better stats than him (like durant had better stats than lebron last year).

so it sounds completely ridiculous to anyone who actually watched him at the time, for you to come back 20 years later and suggest that everyone was missing something back then, because even though you never saw him play at the time like we did, you have gone and done a little research 20 years later, and figured out hakeem might have been better.

GET TF OUT OF HERE
.

navy

01-10-2015, 03:24 AM

Getting a tad sensitive aren't we...

3ball

01-10-2015, 03:32 AM

Getting a tad sensitive aren't we...
sure, but it's true.

most of the posters on here never saw jordan play.. so the only way they can find out about him via their own research on bballref, youtube, or elsewhere.

then based on that research, they have the temerity to come on here and go against legitimate consensus opinions at the time by people who were actually there, who actually watched it all unfold.

if they knew how much of a consensus it was at the time, they wouldn't bother with the research, simply because they'd realize how ridiculous they were being.... but they DON'T know how much of a consensus it was, because they were in diapers.

3ball

01-10-2015, 03:50 AM

it's one thing to say "i think lebron's better than jordan"... at least you are watching lebron play NOW.

that's not nearly as bad as using research you did on your lunch break to go against a consensus established 20 years ago about two players you never saw play.
.

eliteballer

01-10-2015, 03:58 AM

3ball

01-10-2015, 04:07 AM

Barkley was the better player in the regular season. He was the anchor for his team and led them to the best record in the league...WITH KEVIN JOHNSON ONLY PLAYING 49 GAMES.

If Ceballos doesn't get injured in the 2nd round and Barkley doesn't mess up his elbow early in the finals they might well have won the championship too..
the media narrative was that barkley had a better regular season - however, the stats don't support this - it wasn't like last year where durant put up the better numbers.

barkley didn't have the better numbers, but he did have jordan-fatigue on his side and his new start in phoenix gave him the cinderella story too, that's for sure.

but in the playoffs, jordan erased any fuzzy, human-based emotions towards barkley that anyone might have... his playoff numbers were GOAT as usual (35.1, 6.7, 6.0), and he broke the Finals record for ppg and played better in the Finals than anyone in modern history, maybe ever.

all i remember when paxson hit that shot was the announcer screaming "and that's the first points scored by anyone other than Michael Jordan in this entire 4th quarter!!!"
.

3ball

01-10-2015, 04:23 AM

the media narrative was that barkley had a better regular season - however, the stats don't support this - it wasn't like last year where durant put up the better numbers.

barkley didn't have the better numbers, but he did have jordan-fatigue on his side and his new start in phoenix gave him the cinderella story too, that's for sure.

but in the playoffs, jordan erased any fuzzy, human-based emotions towards barkley that anyone might have... his playoff numbers were GOAT as usual (35.1, 6.7, 6.0), and he broke the Finals record for ppg and played better in the Finals than anyone in modern history, maybe ever.

all i remember when paxson hit that shot was the announcer screaming "and that's the first points scored by anyone other than Michael Jordan in this entire 4th quarter!!!"
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy_Pjg1zFjc&t=48m46s

Shep

01-10-2015, 05:02 AM

Go get glasses n stop smoking crack
:rolleyes:

fpliii

01-10-2015, 09:25 AM

3ball - The not watching excuse doesn't work with me, I can't speak for others, but I'm nearly 30 years old and still have my first Orlando Shaq jersey from when I was a kid in storage. Neither does media narrative (the player I have as best in the league is probably different from the consensus most years), so the Barkley thing doesn't mean a ton to me. I also have no problem with anybody saying MJ was better that season. He was a monster.

But you can't force somebody to believe something dude. After watching Hakeem wreck it in the national games that year, and watch the Sonics triple team him nearly every possession in the playoffs, I don't know how you can try and tell me that what I saw didn't happen. EDIT: Especially when someone is a kid, seeing literal giants block shots, and get inside at will unless you send several guys at them leaves an impression.

I don't get you dude. There are differing opinions. When you resort to personal attacks, it weakens your argument severely.

fpliii

01-10-2015, 09:29 AM

Are you talking to me? All I did was quote Hubie Brown :confusedshrug: The overall point, though, was MJ was a premier two-way player and that's what I agree with. It says a lot that he put up a quality year and still only came in third in MVP votes.
Not to you per se but I've seen that logic cited before. Sorry if I came off hostile, guess the point just frustrates me yesterday.

ArbitraryWater

01-10-2015, 10:31 AM

Are you talking to me? All I did was quote Hubie Brown :confusedshrug: The overall point, though, was MJ was a premier two-way player and that's what I agree with. It says a lot that he put up a quality year and still only came in third in MVP votes.

http://img.pandawhale.com/92041-are-you-talking-to-me-gif-Im-t-it4C.gif

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

01-10-2015, 10:56 AM

http://img.pandawhale.com/92041-are-you-talking-to-me-gif-Im-t-it4C.gif
Hey Arb, you're friends with Popcorn right? What do you think about RAPM and the way he's used it, presenting his case for "best player"? I also agree with fpliii; 3ball needs to understand that public perception means very little in these sorta things (imo, Mike was better BUT not because of what others say).

Da_Realist

01-10-2015, 11:31 AM

Stats can't truly measure impact -- only what has already happened. Just like blocks can't measure intimidation -- a lot of blocks are left off the table because players are too intimidated to challenge. Scoring averages can't measure ability. Karl Malone's scoring ability was more than a few pegs below Jordan's but the stats don't really show that wide gulf. All stats and their derivative formulas fail to truly measure impact -- only what has already happened, much of it without context. I watched Jordan play against Orlando in 1996. Stats don't show he was playing with the flu, only that he shot 8-19.

You need more than numbers. The eye test is imperfect due to biases, misunderstandings and LACK of understanding but coupled with stats provide a pretty good basis. There is way too much focus on numbers. Now there is RAPM? I don't care what that means. I don't know how a stat can measure how valuable Mike Miller is when I doubt a single team ever talked about him in their preparations aside from saying, "Don't leave him open.". And even that doesn't depend on him but rather what the "real" MVP of the team ( Lebron) was doing at the moment.

I don't have a problem using stats or some derivative formulas to support an opinion as long as stats aren't the only basis. Going to basketball-reference to determine the "real" mvp is faulty.

Eye test + stats is the best way we can evaluate. If not both, then eye test is higher priority to me than stats alone. I've seen plenty of games where it looks like someone shot badly but game footage shows he shot 3 or 4 bailout shots and 2 desperate half-court heaves to lower his fg%. I've also seen games where someone shot 60% but did NOTHING when the game was actually on the line. There are players that score when they are up 20 and down 20 but do nothing when the game is in doubt. What about when the game requires the star to sacrifice his stats to win the game? How can stats measure a star's willingness to do that? It's hard enough to do it game by game but it's especially hard to extrapolate this stuff over the course of a whole year. This is why it is foolhardy to look back 20 years and make some judgement based on stats without knowing how those numbers came to be.

Youtube has a lot of games but I doubt they have the full set of games of Barkley, Jordan and Olajuwon for the 93 season. Even if they were posted, no one would sit through most of those games just to have a more educated opinion. It's much easier to massage some numbers and read some quotes.

Bigsmoke

01-10-2015, 01:59 PM

People like watching fat people fly

Roundball_Rock

01-10-2015, 04:07 PM

Jordan was the best player, Hakeem should have been MVP.

3ball

01-10-2015, 08:27 PM

The not watching excuse doesn't work with me, I can't speak for others, but I'm nearly 30 years old and still have my first Orlando Shaq jersey from when I was a kid in storage.

it's amazing that you don't realize how dumb this makes you sound - do you really think seeing guys play when you were a wide-eyed 8 year-old can equate to seeing guys play when your brain has fully developed and matured?

Especially when someone is a kid, seeing literal giants block shots, and get inside at will unless you send several guys at them leaves an impression.

again, you only saw him when you were in elementary school, so that doesn't count... in the post above, you said you thought they were a bunch of giants and were impressed by the size... i mean, that's not bad analysis for an 8 year-old, but you can't use that as a basis to say you SAW hakeem and jordan play that year... you didn't... you were 8.

you can't force someone to believe something

i'm not trying to force you to do anything other than refrain from stating your opinion on players that you never saw play and for whom there is already a consensus established by those that DID see them play...

if you never saw them play, you can't possibly go against an established consensus 20 years later based on your "research" into the matter, as if everyone back then missed something - to do so IS dumb.

btw, i could care less about getting personal - if i see someone doing some dumb shit, i'm going to call them out.

if you ever see me on here talking about statistics like i know what i'm talking about, please chastise me and get personal - i would deserve it... sometimes that's the only way to get through to people.

fpliii

01-10-2015, 08:36 PM

mehyaM24

01-10-2015, 08:52 PM

i've watched all the players mentioned in this thread, including the specific years detailed - so lets drop the red-herrings and discuss basketball. once again, these opinions are backed by game tape and hard data. nothing more, nothing less.

my 1992 and 1997 threads will be done in a couple days. i'm going to include youtube links along with them.

3ball

01-10-2015, 09:02 PM

3ball - Maybe it's crude, but the history of the game hasn't lied, and neither does tape. It's a big man's game, size is an asset. It's not like I'm comparing MJ to a scrub, this is one of the best centers of all time.

So let me get this straight...watching guys play as a kid doesn't count for anything, going back and watching games, no matter how many I watch, doesn't count for anything, looking at stats, doesn't count for anything, going back and doing qualitative research from newspapers, magazines, annuals, doesn't count.

I don't know what to tell you dude.

My mind is made up for now, and I'm not the only one who feels that way. I'm willing to change my mind from watching even more tape. This shouldn't be a problem. I don't know why you're trying to force unanimity on a subjective issue.

i know your mind's made up - but i'm just informing you how dumb you are for thinking you can do a little research on guys you never saw play, and then decide against a consensus established 20 years prior by guys that DID see him play... it's just dumb, any way you slice it.

sometimes, there are things people say that reveals how nascent their understanding about something is - you saying hakeem might have been better than Jordan in 1993 is one of those things.

it used to be a big man's game... big men used to control all the action on the floor, ON BOTH OFFENSE AND DEFENSE... then Jordan came along and proved that you could win at a high level with a guard as the focal point, and also have better team offenses than anything a big man has ever done (i.e. the Bulls team ORtg's crush Shaq's Lakers).

once the nba digested what jordan had done after he retired, they changed the rules so everyone could be more like jordan - so now the game is controlled by perimeter players, and big men NO LONGER CONTROL THE ACTION ON THE OFFENSIVE END OF THE FLOOR... instead, big men in today's game are just defenders and play-finishers... thank Jordan for that, and his unique domination of the golden age of big men.
.

fpliii

01-10-2015, 09:06 PM

Da_Realist

01-10-2015, 09:53 PM

Jordan was the best player, Hakeem should have been MVP.

True. At the same time, I don't think Barkley was undeserving of the MVP. Nobody was robbed. I would think the same thing had Jordan or Olajuwon won it.

3ball

01-10-2015, 10:44 PM

Answer two questions for me:

1) How many games of a player does somebody have to watch of a player from a given season, to be qualified to evaluate that season, for a player?

2) What's the minimum age for somebody to produce competent analysis of players, watching live?
certainly, you can't use games you saw as an 8-year old... i would say your brain has to be completely formed and mature.

the issue is that you went against an established consensus without having seen either guy play at the time.

anytime you do that, you risk saying something that is ridiculous - example: in 2030, some young guy that never saw lebron or pau gasol play, could say "you know what, even though i never saw either guy play, i was doing a little research, and did you know that gasol was probably the MVP of the 2010 Finals???.. and there's this cool new stat that gasol really crushes - i think he was better than lebron that year... i mean, it's close, but i think you can actually go with gasol."

see, this guy never saw either guy play, but he decided to go against the consensus, based solely on some research he did - anytime you do this, you run the severe risk of saying something that is completely ridiculous - this guy wasn't there at the time, so he can't put his research in the proper perspective, and consequently, his conclusion is totally bogus... and he's completely unaware of how bogus it is.
.

fpliii

01-10-2015, 10:48 PM

certainly, you can't use games you saw as an 8-year old... i would say your brain has to be completely formed and mature.
Dude, you skipped over the first question:

1) How many games of a player does somebody have to watch of a player from a given season, to be qualified to evaluate that season, for a player?
and didn't directly answer the second, though that's not a huge deal.

Can you please give me numbers you feel comfortable with here (ballpark is fine)? Not trolling you, just trying to get straight responses.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

01-10-2015, 11:24 PM

certainly, you can't use games you saw as an 8-year old... i would say your brain has to be completely formed and mature.

see, this guy never saw either guy play, but he decided to go against the consensus, based solely on some research he did - anytime you do this, you run the severe risk of saying something that is completely ridiculous - this guy wasn't there at the time, so he can't put his research in the proper perspective, and consequently, his conclusion is totally bogus... and he's completely unaware of how bogus it is.
.

Sure you can. Brain functionality and "maturity" is all relative. 99% of the posters here weren't alive during WWII, but that doesn't mean they cannot deduce or grasp what actually happened, giving an opinion and ultimate conclusion after the fact.

I watched Jordan in his PEAK, live, and have him as the best player that season, but I can honestly say that Hakeem made a strong case for himself. The Finals later separated that notion, but neutrally speaking there was a case to be made.

Fatal9 uploaded a video where Hubie Brown talks about the MVP voting, later saying Hakeem was playing as good as anybody at the time.

DatAsh

01-10-2015, 11:58 PM

3ball - The not watching excuse doesn't work with me, I can't speak for others, but I'm nearly 30 years old and still have my first Orlando Shaq jersey from when I was a kid in storage.

I always thought you were my age for some reason.

I believe you btw, just thought you were younger for some reason.

DatAsh

01-11-2015, 12:10 AM

i know your mind's made up - but i'm just informing you how dumb you are for thinking you can do a little research on guys you never saw play, and then decide against a consensus established 20 years prior by guys that DID see him play... it's just dumb, any way you slice it.

sometimes, there are things people say that reveals how nascent their understanding about something is - you saying hakeem might have been better than Jordan in 1993 is one of those things.

it used to be a big man's game... big men used to control all the action on the floor, ON BOTH OFFENSE AND DEFENSE... then Jordan came along and proved that you could win at a high level with a guard as the focal point, and also have better team offenses than anything a big man has ever done (i.e. the Bulls team ORtg's crush Shaq's Lakers).

once the nba digested what jordan had done after he retired, they changed the rules so everyone could be more like jordan - so now the game is controlled by perimeter players, and big men NO LONGER CONTROL THE ACTION ON THE OFFENSIVE END OF THE FLOOR... instead, big men in today's game are just defenders and play-finishers... thank Jordan for that, and his unique domination of the golden age of big men.
.

I actually don't think you'll get much argument from fpliii that Jordan was quite a bit better than Olajuwon offensively, but Olajuwon was certainly quite a bit better defensively; factoring in offense and defense, I'd say their pretty darn close. I'd still go with Jordan, but mainly for the culture he brought to teams at that time. Jordan expected to win, and people that played with Jordan expected to win, and I think that's important.

fpliii

01-11-2015, 12:17 AM

I always thought you were my age for some reason.

I believe you btw, just thought you were younger for some reason.
28 right now, turn 29 this year.

SamuraiSWISH

01-11-2015, 01:33 AM

3ball

01-11-2015, 03:19 AM

Jordan was best player in the league from '88 - '93, '96, and '97. And those seasons taking everything into account, season, and playoffs? That much was obvious. Arguable in '87, and '98. MJ should've probably owned 2 to 3 more MVP trophies. Let us be real.
if we are just going by regular season, then sure, the 1998 MVP could have gone to someone else, because 1998 was the first season where another guy had better regular season stats than Jordan.

but in the playoffs, whose stats were better?... who played better in the 1998 playoffs than Jordan?... shaq had one of the most stacked teams of all time and got swept by the Jazz in embarrassing fashion, while Jordan crushed that same Jazz team in the Finals.

and he had to do it single-handedly - Jordan was forced to score a record 38% of his team's points in the 1998 Finals because Pippen and Rodman were both MIA (Pippen 15 ppg and 41% FG.... Rodman 3 ppg and 8.1 rebs)... and of course the greatest clutch plays any of us have ever seen... that makes him the best player in 1998 too... :confusedshrug:

mehyaM24

01-11-2015, 03:26 AM

Jordan was best player in the league from '88 - '93, '96, and '97. And those seasons taking everything into account, season, and playoffs? That much was obvious. Arguable in '87, and '98. MJ should've probably owned 2 to 3 more MVP trophies. Let us be real.
perception, causation, and objectivity - drop the former, you need the latter two, bud.

you will enjoy my 1992 thread, being a jordan fan and whatnot. i plan on doing the 1992 and 1997 threads within a couple weeks. stay in touch.

3ball

01-11-2015, 08:09 AM

factoring in offense and defense, I'd say their pretty darn close. I'd still go with Jordan, but mainly for the culture he brought to teams at that time. Jordan expected to win, and people that played with Jordan expected to win, and I think that's important.

:facepalm

the rockets team DRtg was better than the bulls for hakeem's entire career... so why did hakeem's squads still do SO MUCH worse than jordan's?

since the rocket's defense was better, it could ONLY be the offense.

what was the #1 reason the bulls were superior offensively?... the stats say jordan... since hakeem can't duplicate the stats or the many ways jordan's ability can fit into a team's offense, we know hakeem could not have replaced jordan and duplicated his success... he would have fallen well short, just like he did with the actual teams he had.

hakeem got swept by the lakers in 1991 RD1.. missed the playoffs in 1992.. swept by the sonics in 1996.. lost 4-2 to Utah in 1997 WCF.. lost 3-2 to Utah in 1998 RD1.. and shaq got swept by Utah in 1998....

notice a trend here ^^^^^^?... hakeem got smashed by everyone that jordan smashed - so did shaq... but keep trying to revise history guys... :facepalm

Da_Realist

01-11-2015, 01:28 PM

Sure you can. Brain functionality and "maturity" is all relative. 99% of the posters here weren't alive during WWII, but that doesn't mean they cannot deduce or grasp what actually happened, giving an opinion and ultimate conclusion after the fact.

Not for MVP. You can watch a few games and determine who's the best team or even the best player but MVP is earned through the nuances of a long regular season. That would be like answering, "Who was the single greatest hero from WWII?" You can't answer that unless you had a boot on the ground. Nobody can hear a speech, read some accounts and then determine that this guy was a greater hero than some other guy. Especially if your determination goes against the consensus opinion of those that were actually there.

I wonder how many actually watched Barkley play in 93. Michael was the best player, Hakeem was a better two way player than Barkley but Barkley had a great enough season to earn the MVP that year. Like I said, nobody was robbed.

This kind of discussion should be reserved for those guys that were clearly undeserving of the MVP. All this thread is doing, at best, is making the claim that others were just as deserving.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

01-11-2015, 02:00 PM

Not for MVP. You can watch a few games and determine who's the best team or even the best player but MVP is earned through the nuances of a long regular season. That would be like answering, "Who was the single greatest hero from WWII?" You can't answer that unless you had a boot on the ground. Nobody can hear a speech, read some accounts and then determine that this guy was a greater hero than some other guy. Especially if your determination goes against the consensus opinion of those that were actually there.

I wonder how many actually watched Barkley play in 93. Michael was the best player, Hakeem was a better two way player than Barkley but Barkley had a great enough season to earn the MVP that year. Like I said, nobody was robbed.

This kind of discussion should be reserved for those guys that were clearly undeserving of the MVP. All this thread is doing, at best, is making the claim that others were just as deserving.

Was only talking about the best player stuff. I actually agree with your MVP/war hero comparison. Hah :cheers:

Da_Realist

01-11-2015, 02:44 PM

Was only talking about the best player stuff. I actually agree with your MVP/war hero comparison. Hah :cheers:

Oh that's my fault for confusing the two points. :cheers:

Roundball_Rock

01-11-2015, 03:13 PM

but in the playoffs, whose stats were better?... who played better in the 1998 playoffs than Jordan?... shaq had one of the most stacked teams of all time and got swept by the Jazz in embarrassing fashion, while Jordan crushed that same Jazz team in the Finals.

and he had to do it single-handedly - Jordan was forced to score a record 38% of his team's points in the 1998 Finals because Pippen and Rodman were both MIA (Pippen 15 ppg and 41% FG.... Rodman 3 ppg and 8.1 rebs)... and of course the greatest clutch plays any of us have ever seen... that makes him the best player in 1998 too... :confusedshrug:

This is laughable. Pippen's defense was the #1 reason Chicago took a 3-1 lead yet MJ stans claim Mike won by himself. This kind of BS is why MJ gets so much hate...

Shaq did not have the benefit of the GOAT defensive series by a perimeter player against the Jazz. Jones, Van Exel and Kobe all had atrocious performances against the Jazz. :oldlol: at blaming Shaq for that loss.

What makes the "MJ did it all by himself" mythology even more absurd is we actually did see Mike with weak "supporting casts" and we all know what the results were...this is not some thought experiment. We actually saw Mike on such teams for several years!

3ball

01-11-2015, 07:19 PM

yet MJ stans claim Mike won 1998 Finals by himself.

jordan scored a RECORD 38% of his team's points in the 1998 Finals, while pippen and rodman disappeared... i'm not sure what more you want out of him... this was already the best anyone has ever done.

What makes the "MJ did it all by himself" mythology even more absurd is...

No one said Jordan did it all by himself.

But Jordan put up the highest PER, win shares, and had the highest production ever (as measured by scoring + assists), on his way to 6 championships - so the stats PROVE that MJ won by himself more than any player in history.

like, find me a guy that has a higher PER, win shares or has more points + assists than jordan - otherwise, jordan won championships by himself more than any player in history.

we actually did see Mike with weak "supporting casts" and we all know what the results were..

i'll go ahead and restate the obvious: Jordan's playoff losses in 1987 and 1990 were to the defending NBA Champion (Celtics and Pistons)... Lebron has NEVER had to face a defending champion in the playoffs.

additionally, Jordan lost to the the defending Eastern Conference champion in 1986 (Celtics) and 1989 (Pistons) .. lebron has never had to face a defending Eastern Conference champion to get out of the East.
.

juju151111

01-11-2015, 07:34 PM

This is laughable. Pippen's defense was the #1 reason Chicago took a 3-1 lead yet MJ stans claim Mike won by himself. This kind of BS is why MJ gets so much hate...

Shaq did not have the benefit of the GOAT defensive series by a perimeter player against the Jazz. Jones, Van Exel and Kobe all had atrocious performances against the Jazz. :oldlol: at blaming Shaq for that loss.

What makes the "MJ did it all by himself" mythology even more absurd is we actually did see Mike with weak "supporting casts" and we all know what the results were...this is not some thought experiment. We actually saw Mike on such teams for several years!
Yea Pippen won the finals Mvp in 98. Oh wait:lol. Like 3ball said MJ had to take the offensive load.

andgar923

01-11-2015, 07:35 PM

jordan scored a RECORD 38% of his team's points in the 1998 Finals, while pippen and rodman disappeared... i'm not sure what more you want out of him... this was already the best anyone has ever done.

No one said Jordan did it all by himself.

But Jordan put up the highest PER, win shares, and had the highest production ever (as measured by scoring + assists), on his way to 6 championships - so the stats PROVE that MJ won by himself more than any player in history.

like, find me a guy that has a higher PER, win shares or has more points + assists than jordan - otherwise, jordan won championships by himself more than any player in history.

i'll go ahead and restate the obvious: Jordan's playoff losses in 1987 and 1990 were to the defending NBA Champion (Celtics and Pistons)... Lebron has NEVER had to face a defending champion in the playoffs.

additionally, Jordan lost to the the defending Eastern Conference champion in 1986 (Celtics) and 1989 (Pistons) .. lebron has never had to face a defending Eastern Conference champion to get out of the East.
.

He acts as tho MJ had little impact on defense and lacked 'intangibles'

Roundball_Rock

01-11-2015, 07:41 PM

Defense. You know, half of basketball--and where MJ was the #4 option in that series. He did not even guard Stockton as Harper did that.

Pippen was the front-runner for FMVP through 4 games (3 Chicago wins) and this guy says he "disappeared." :lol

so the stats PROVE that MJ won by himself more than any player in history.

:rolleyes:

His team was a contender even without him--despite having a D-League "replacement" for the alleged GOAT. Imagine if the alleged GOAT was replaced by a legitimate NBA starting SG...maybe the Bulls would have improved from 93' despite losing the "greatest of all-time."

i'll go ahead and restate the obvious: Jordan's playoff losses in 1987 and 1990 were to the defending NBA Champion (Celtics and Pistons)... Lebron has NEVER had to face a defending champion in the playoffs.

MJ stans still fail to grasp how playoff seeding works. If the "greatest of all-time" is "carrying" his team to 38-44 or 40-42 his team will draw a tough playoff opponent. LeBron has never been worse than the #4 seed and usually is on the #1 or #2 seed.

MJ joined a 27 win team and improved it to 38 wins (similar to Derrick Rose's rookie year improvement--and the worst of any top-tier all-time great in MJ's case). Three years later they improved to 40-42. It took MJ four years to get over 0.500--the longest of any top 10 all-time player. It took him five years to get to the WCF/ECF--the longest of any top 10 all-time player. All this was with the "greatest of all-time" coming from UNC.

LeBron came straight from high school and took a 17 win team to 35 wins. In his second year, at age 20, he got them past 0.500. Since then LeBron has never lost in the first round, never been below 0.600 in games he played in and has been on the #1 or #2 seed almost every year.

LeBron would not be getting swept by the Celtics in the first round because he would not be going in as a #8 seed.

Regarding LeBron's playoff losses:

2006: to the reigning EC champs.
2007: to the NBA champs.
2008: to the NBA champs (7 games, not a sweep). LeBron's team took a 66-16 team with 3 HOF'ers in/near their prime plus Rondo to 7 games despite the Cavs being a 45-37 team, including 0-7 when LeBron did not play.
2009: to the EC champs.
2010: to the EC champs (who took the Lakers to 7 games).
2011: to the NBA champs.
2014: to the NBA champs.

:oldlol: at acting as if LeBron was out there losing to the Joe Johnson Hawks or the Bucks.

juju151111

01-11-2015, 07:51 PM

Defense. You know, half of basketball--and where MJ was the #4 option in that series. He did not even guard Stockton as Harper did that.

Pippen was the front-runner for FMVP through 4 games (3 Chicago wins) and this guy says he "disappeared." :lol

:rolleyes:

His team was a contender even without him--despite having a D-League "replacement" for the alleged GOAT. Imagine if the alleged GOAT was replaced by a legitimate NBA starting SG...maybe the Bulls would have improved from 93' despite losing the "greatest of all-time."

MJ stans still fail to grasp how playoff seeding works. If the "greatest of all-time" is "carrying" his team to 38-44 or 40-42 his team will draw a tough playoff opponent. LeBron has never been worse than the #4 seed and usually is on the #1 or #2 seed.

MJ joined a 27 win team and improved it to 38 wins (similar to Derrick Rose's rookie year improvement--and the worst of any top-tier all-time great in MJ's case). Three years later they improved to 40-42. It took MJ four years to get over 0.500--the longest of any top 10 all-time player. It took him five years to get to the WCF/ECF--the longest of any top 10 all-time player. All this was with the "greatest of all-time" coming from UNC.

LeBron came straight from high school and took a 17 win team to 35 wins. In his second year, at age 20, he got them past 0.500. Since then LeBron has never lost in the first round, never been below 0.600 in games he played in and has been on the #1 or #2 seed almost every year.

LeBron would not be getting swept by the Celtics in the first round because he would not be going in as a #8 seed

Regarding LeBron's playoff losses:

2006: to the reigning EC champs.
2007: to the NBA champs.
2008: to the NBA champs (7 games, not a sweep).
2009: to the EC champs.
2010: to the EC champs (who took the Lakers to 7 games).
2011: to the NBA champs.
2014: to the NBA champs.

:oldlol: at acting as if LeBron was out there losing to the Joe Johnson Hawks or the Bucks.
1.Fact MJ won the 1998 MVP stop your BS. Let's stop making up fairy tales
2. His team lost in the 2nd round and was not doing too well in 95. Pippen was noted to be acting like a child and not a leader when Phil called a play for kukoc. The very next season the Pippen campaign ed for MJ to return to basketball. They were not contenders. Pretenders more I like it
3. Who cares how long it took him? He has 6 rings:lol This have no relevance what do ever.
4. lJ is only 2/5 in the finals and choked in 2 finals. 07 and 11. The 11 one is more damaging because he was in his prime.

andgar923

01-11-2015, 07:57 PM

MJ had to guard Horny, Russell, Eisley as well as Stockton and help. To be honest, horny is as tough a matchup as they come because he was always moving, always a threat to score and draw fouls.

This fool acting as if he's just standing there.

MJ is getting double and triple teamed, not pip, MJ has all the pressure on him not Pip.

We all know how Pip performs under pressure.

Da_Realist

01-11-2015, 08:40 PM

I don't think Lebron would have racked up as many wins if he was placed in the late 80's Eastern Conference that sat two teams considered in the top 5. Bill Simmons had the 86 Celtics as the #1 team of all time, the 89 Pistons 4th. Just his opinion but not many people would differ too much with that. The 87 Celtics were strong enough to push the mighty 87 Lakers to 6 games. The 88 Pistons were good enough to make it to the finals and get thisclose to actually winning it.

That's not to mention the Atlanta Hawks, Milwaukee Bucks and Cleveland Cavaliers who were all very good teams that could hurt you both inside and outside. The Eastern Conference was by far the better conference back then. They were men that knew how to play, not teams full of kids that would have still been in college.

Also, each team had to play every other conference foe 6 times back then. 6 times vs Celtics, 6 times vs Pistons, 6 times vs everyone else in the conference. Not four, or three in some cases like today.

Secondly, I don't think the Bulls would have struggled as mightily with today's rules. The Pistons wouldn't have been able to cover MJ at all without being able to touch him. No touching, wide open lanes...he would have won more because it would have been easier to score and eventually give his teammates wide open shots due to the spacing rules used today.

3ball

01-11-2015, 08:53 PM

Pippen was the front-runner for FMVP through 4 games (3 Chicago wins) and this guy says he "disappeared." :lol

In the 1998 Finals, Pippen had 6 points on 2-14 in Game 5, and 8 points on 4-7 in the Game 6 clincher... that constitutes DISAPPEARING, by any measure..

through the first 4 games, pippen was averaging 19 ppg compared to jordan's 32 ppg... if the series had ended then, jordan would have gotten the MVP easily... there were a couple charity articles written by reporters after Game 4, who wanted to go against the grain, but two lone articles out of thousands is a couple reporters giving scottie some charity via a nonsensical devil's advocate, not a consensus.

btw, it's a testament to how great a scorer jordan was, that people use his greatness at scoring to act as though he wasn't a defender - Jordan was 1st Team All-Defense in 1998, for the 10th time in a row (a record).

Pippen averaged 15ppg on 41% shooting in the 1998 Finals - that's worse than Wade in the 2014 Finals... but the difference is that jordan attempted an alpha 27 shots per game, compared to lebron's beta 17, which kept the Bulls close enough so Jordan could close, as he did in goat fashion.

His team was a contender even without him--despite having a D-League "replacement" for the alleged GOAT.

exiting in the 2nd round is not "contending"... you just don't realize how massive the gap is between an ordinary 2nd round exit team and a 3-peat champion, the greatest team of all time.

do you think there is a massive gap between a 2nd round exit team and the greatest team of all time?

for some reason, it isn't registering with you how insanely huge that gap is... it's the difference between an everyday team and a once-in-a-lifetime team - that's the difference Jordan makes.

Since then LeBron has never lost in the first round... and has been on the #1 or #2 seed almost every year.

again you are just unaware that lebron has enjoyed the weakest Eastern Conference ever - this is common knowledge, but it has flown over your head somehow.

lebron only had to win 50 games to be the 2 seed - that's how weak the conference was.... you could NEVER be the 2 seed with only 50 wins in Jordan's era... For example compare Jordan's 1989 to Lebron's 2007 - Jordan played the 3 seeded Cavs in the first round, and they had won 57 games!... http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=361889

Regarding LeBron's playoff losses

again, unlike jordan whose only playoff losses came to the defending Eastern Conference champions or defending NBA champions (so only Finals participants from the previous year), lebron has NEVER faced a defending champion in the playoffs, EVER, or even a defending conference champion...

losing to the eventual champion is not a viable comparison because lebron is playing for the championship too... and he simply loses most every time except twice.

:oldlol: at acting as if LeBron was out there losing to the Joe Johnson Hawks or the Bucks.

lebron loses as the FAVORITE all the time - it's what he does - he lost state championship in high school as the favorite.. he lost in the Olympics and World Games as the favorite.. he lost as the favorite in 2009 to Orlando.. and again in 2010 to Boston.. and again in 2011 to Dallas...

lebron-ball simply causes his teams to underachieve - lebron only rings when he has SO MUCH talent that the team has enough left over to still win after lebron reduces everyone - as you can see, we have MORE than enough empirical evidence to prove this is exactly what happens on his teams.
.

mehyaM24

01-11-2015, 09:13 PM

Pippen averaged 15ppg on 41% shooting in the 1998 Finals - that's worse than Wade in the 2014 Finals... but the difference is that jordan attempted an alpha 27 shots per game, compared to lebron's beta 17, which kept the Bulls close enough so Jordan could close, as he did in goat fashion.
AND this is why advanced metrics are needed. idiots clinging onto myths, simplifying games down to arbitrary "alpha, omega and beta" narratives.. like, you cannot be serious?

even if we were to boil down the game with buzz words that sound "pretty", lebron and his "beta" 17 field goal attempts still rendered a game score of 22.5 and ORtg of 120, which is higher than jordan's 21.4 game score and 112 ORtg. and here lies your misguided, one track, hero ball-centric way of evaluating players.

there is FAR more to the game than simply just chucking up shots - i can promise you.

everything else in your post was flagrantly wrong, but i don't have the time to correct it ATM (still gathering clips for my next thread).

3ball

01-11-2015, 09:49 PM

lebron and his "beta" 17 field goal attempts still rendered a game score of 22.5 and ORtg of 120, which is higher than jordan's 21.4 game score and 112 ORtg.

wow, Jordan's ORtg was THAT high in those Finals despite taking 27 shots per game!!!... imagine if he had taken 17 shots per game like lebron..

btw, if you are putting that much faith in the stats, then you don't need to watch the games then - you can just look at an advanced stat sheet and that will tell you everything you know.

however, if you did that, you'd miss the fact that the 2014 Heat were top-heavy - they weren't a well-balanced team like the Spurs and accordingly, they needed their #1 option to take more than 17 shots per game...

the top-heavy nature of the 2014 Heat was a lot like the 1998 Bulls - in the 1998 Finals, Jordan averaged 34ppg... Pippen 15ppg... Kukocs 15ppg, and the next guy was Harper with 5 ppg.

so while lebron was looking at the stat sheet like you, he missed the reality that 17 shots per game on a top-heavy team like he had, would DESTROY his team... no wonder he looked shell-shocked on the bench when they were getting smashed.... he was like "what happened... bbbbbbbut i'm shooting 56% from the field"... :cry:

bron was a dumbass in the 2014 Finals - and i'm not going out of my way to be harsh - but his approach was simply pretty dumb.... only 3 guys in the last 25 years who led their team in shot attempts have won a Finals taking as low a proportion of their team's shots as lebron took (25.56%).. so lebron's odds of winning a championship with his plan to shoot 17 shots per game was flat-out dumb.

his team would've had a chance if he took 27 shots per game and went all-out like Jordan did, as the #1 option SHOULD on a top-heavy team... then maybe he'd have had chance to steal a game or two, be clutch, and change the series.
.