1997 MVP and best player

[mehyaM24]

is a crossway tie between shaq AND jordan - these two were utterly dominant that year, leading the league in scoring (1 and 2 respectively) and player efficiency rating (PER). what made shaq's numbers and all-around play special, though, is the guy playing just half of the season AND YET still being able to record these numbers. in the games that he played (51), shaq had 44 double-doubles (not a typo), 8 games of 34 & 10+, and all-around games of 25/18/5/7, 34/10/7/6, 33/11/6/3, 33/13/5/7/2, 32/14/7/3, 18/19/5, 29p/21, 23p/20r. in the playoffs, shaq averaged 27/11/3/2 on 55% TS and 52% FG along with a 29 PER, leading the lakers to the semifinals. unfortunately the lakers were to be had in 5 versus utah (not alot of help from his teammates), but still - an amazing season DESPITE the injuries.

oth, jordan was the leading scorer for all perimeter players, with two 50 point games, eight games of 40+ points, all-around games of 30/10/11, 19/10/8, 26/14/5, 40/6/6, 45/5/7, 32 & 18. in the playoffs, jordan averaged 31/8/5 on 52%TS and 46%FG in the playoffs along with a 27 PER, helping the bulls win a championship against utah (substantial help from his teammates) - a legendary season to go with a couple iconic moments.

and finally, the advanced metric, RAPM, which stabilizes individual impact, puts shaq atop of everyone with a 6.3 rating. michael jordan by contrast rated 4.3, just behind his teammate scottie pippen, who had ~4.6 (this goes back to team strength and overall help).

IMO jordan was definitely the 1997 MVP over malone, as he, unlike shaq, played the entire season while administering near equal productivity. best player for me is shaq, although i can also see arguments being made for jordan (more iconic moments and the hardware to make up for the minimal statistical gap). so once again - jordan for MVP and shaq for BEST player, thus equal.

game footage:
shaq - 46p/11r vs blazers, playoffs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMbkx1bpCeI)
shaq dominating in his first appearance as a laker (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pc7sKXoZ3U)
shaq runs the break, spins around defender and dunks (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxjazYnEpIA)
shaq - 34/11/6/4 vs jazz, playoffs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYNR0_Bg7Fc)

jordan - 31/4/8 and game winner vs jazz, 1997 finals (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNlNXtcYodc)
jordan - 50 points vs heat (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbc7oEOJpco)
jordan - 55 points vs bullets, playoffs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36YZvyvPL0I)
jordan - iconic flu game, finals (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEwEsdKrNcM)


edit: 1992 thread coming soon - i might do 1994 and 1995 although those years are mostly unanimous

[sportjames23]

So, you gonna do 1988 and 1991, also? :rolleyes:

[mehyaM24]

So, you gonna do 1988 and 1991, also? :rolleyes:
possibly. most of the years i'm doing aren't so clear-cut.

94 and 95 should be fun - but the MVP is something i would seriously like to break down. a lot of myths thrown out there that need to be closed.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Nah, it's clear MJ was the best player in the game all these seasons with all factors considered. He just separates himself too much in the more meaningful, pressure packed parts of the season ... IE, the playoffs, and Finals.

[mehyaM24]

Nah, it's clear MJ was the best player in the game all these seasons with all factors considered. He just separates himself too much in the more meaningful, pressure packed parts of the season ... IE, the playoffs, and Finals.
objective data and game tape suggest otherwise. jordan should have won MVP, but shaq given what he produced when healthy, was the best player and most impactful.

i will later list all the seasons i've made threads on, justly validating my claims - e.g. most years in the 90s are FAR from clear-cut.

(regarding my OP, jordan has a strong case for MVP and BEST PLAYER. i would not argue otherwise)

[julizaver]

is a crossway tie between shaq AND jordan - these two were utterly dominant that year, leading the league in scoring (1 and 2 respectively) and player efficiency rating (PER). what made shaq's numbers and all-around play special, though, is the guy playing just half of the season AND YET still being able to record these numbers. in the games that he played (51), shaq had 44 double-doubles (not a typo), 8 games of 34 & 10+, and all-around games of 25/18/5/7, 34/10/7/6, 33/11/6/3, 33/13/5/7/2, 32/14/7/3, 18/19/5, 29p/21, 23p/20r. in the playoffs, shaq averaged 27/11/3/2 on 55% TS and 52% FG along with a 29 PER, leading the lakers to the semifinals. unfortunately the lakers were to be had in 5 versus utah (not alot of help from his teammates), but still - an amazing season DESPITE the injuries.

oth, jordan was the leading scorer for all perimeter players, with two 50 point games, eight games of 40+ points, all-around games of 30/10/11, 19/10/8, 26/14/5, 40/6/6, 45/5/7, 32 & 18. in the playoffs, jordan averaged 31/8/5 on 52%TS and 46%FG in the playoffs along with a 27 PER, helping the bulls win a championship against utah (substantial help from his teammates) - a legendary season to go with a couple iconic moments.

and finally, the advanced metric, RAPM, which stabilizes individual impact, puts shaq atop of everyone with a 6.3 rating. michael jordan by contrast rated 4.3, just behind his teammate scottie pippen, who had ~4.6 (this goes back to team strength and overall help).

IMO jordan was definitely the 1997 MVP over malone, as he, unlike shaq, played the entire season while administering near equal productivity. best player for me is shaq, although i can also see arguments being made for jordan (more iconic moments and the hardware to make up for the minimal statistical gap). so once again - jordan for MVP and shaq for BEST player, thus equal.

game footage:
shaq - 46p/11r vs blazers, playoffs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMbkx1bpCeI)
shaq dominating in his first appearance as a laker (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pc7sKXoZ3U)
shaq runs the break, spins around defender and dunks (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxjazYnEpIA)
shaq - 34/11/6/4 vs jazz, playoffs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYNR0_Bg7Fc)

jordan - 31/4/8 and game winner vs jazz, 1997 finals (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNlNXtcYodc)
jordan - 50 points vs heat (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbc7oEOJpco)
jordan - 55 points vs bullets, playoffs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36YZvyvPL0I)
jordan - iconic flu game, finals (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEwEsdKrNcM)


edit: 1992 thread coming soon - i might do 1994 and 1995 although those years are mostly unanimous

Maybe I have missed something (I did not have the time to read all of the threads - what is the agenda of discussing who the best was during the period where Jordan was dominating and winning? In particular 1993 when Jordan was at the height of his career and was undisputed and consensus league best. After his first retirement he had a reputation as the basketball's god and basketball's perfect player. Thes second best SG of his era was Drexler and MJ was one level above him. He dominated, wininig everything. Good for Hakeem that MJ steped down in 1993 otherwise I would not be suprised if Bulls won all the titles between 1991 and 1998. I mean it is not even closed. By 1998 when he was 35 he was giving him some rest during the reg. season and probably did not play as hard as he could, but always delivered when matters most. Of course if you compare his stats with that of Robinson or Shaq, or Hakeem it could seems as they are all of the same level, but the real story was a little different. The game good big mens were always good on stats (because of playing near the basket, had the height advantage, accumulating rebounds and having those high percentage shots). As I pointed on another thread David Robinson was 5 or 6 time awarded IBM award for something of a leader of PER (biggest contributor to his team in terms of stats), BUT that doesn't mean he was the best player in the league.

[Overdrive]

I'm a huge Shaq fan, but both in 97 and 98 the Lakers underachieved. You can atleast a little bit put that on Shaq.

[mehyaM24]

Maybe I have missed something (I did not have the time to read all of the threads - what is the agenda of discussing who the best was during the period where Jordan was dominating and winning? In particular 1993 when Jordan was at the height of his career and was undisputed and consensus league best. After his first retirement he had a reputation as the basketball's god and basketball's perfect player. Thes second best SG of his era was Drexler and MJ was one level above him. He dominated, wininig everything. Good for Hakeem that MJ steped down in 1993 otherwise I would not be suprised if Bulls won all the titles between 1991 and 1998. I mean it is not even closed. By 1998 when he was 35 he was giving him some rest during the reg. season and probably did not play as hard as he could, but always delivered when matters most. Of course if you compare his stats with that of Robinson or Shaq, or Hakeem it could seems as they are all of the same level, but the real story was a little different. The game good big mens were always good on stats (because of playing near the basket, had the height advantage, accumulating rebounds and having those high percentage shots). As I pointed on another thread David Robinson was 5 or 6 time awarded IBM award for something of a leader of PER (biggest contributor to his team in terms of stats), BUT that doesn't mean he was the best player in the league.

i'm not interested with perception. i watched all throughout the 90s and save for 90-92ish, i never ONCE thought jordan was the clear-cut, best player. not even close actually.

RAPM, one of the best advanced metrics for gauging a players individual impact (less margin of error than a stat like PER), merely backs my opinion on the matter. neutralizing the individuals impact, it shows us that players who essentially had the same ROLE did what they did, and how they directly changed their respective teams' outcome.

of course, jordan was the most skilled perimeter player at the time. perhaps the greatest volume scorer in history, as well - but in team basketball its IMPACT>SKILL, every. single. time. (why i would take shaq & kareem > hakeem)


I'm a huge Shaq fan, but both in 97 and 98 the Lakers underachieved. You can atleast a little bit put that on Shaq.
a tiny amount? sure. but i've made a few threads (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=364466) on this already. the lakers as a whole outside of shaq completely went ghost against utah. both years.

[Shep]

Jordan, and Jordan. There is no need to create these topics all you need to do is ask me, as I have all the answers.

[3ball]

(substantial help from his teammates)


We know that MJ had less help than guys like Bird, Lebron, and Kobe, because in order to win his rings, MJ needed to average 10 MORE ppg in the Finals then those guys did... there is no way MJ had more help, but somehow still had to score that many more ppg in the Finals.





i can also see arguments being made for jordan


Shaq had way more supporting help than Jordan, but Jordan's teams had significantly better ORtg's than Shaq's teams... this is because the triangle ran more optimally with Jordan as the focal point, than with Shaq as the focal point - there is no other way to explain the Bulls significantly higher team ORtgs.

the reason for the Bulls more optimal and successful triangle is simple: while shaq's scoring (like any dominant big) forces teammates to sacrifice and restrict their movements by positioning themselves appropriately to get him the ball inside, jordan's off-ball play does not restrict his teammates in any way, which enabled the Bulls' triangle to be less rigid and predictable.

Also, it should be noted that Shaq's talented Lakers got smashed by the Utah Jazz 4-1 in the 1997 WCSF, and swept by the Jazz in the 1998 WCF - of course, Jordan went on to personally destroy both of these Jazz teams.





and finally, the advanced metric, RAPM, which stabilizes individual impact, puts shaq atop of everyone with a 6.3 rating. michael jordan by contrast rated 4.3, just behind his teammate scottie pippen, who had ~4.6 (this goes back to team strength and overall help).


where are you getting your RAPM data?... The data I'm seeing was linked from the APBR metrics board - it says Jordan was 2nd in 1997 RAPM with 5.84... Scottie had 5.44... and Shaq's was 4.17.

http://apbr.org/metrics/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8536
http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2013/10/introducing-1990s-rapm.html

[3ball]

(substantial help from his teammates)


We know that MJ had less help than guys like Bird, Lebron, and Kobe, because in order to win his rings, MJ needed to average 10 MORE ppg in the Finals then those guys did... there is no way MJ had more help, but somehow still had to score that many more ppg in the Finals.





i can also see arguments being made for jordan


Shaq had way more supporting help than Jordan, but Jordan's teams had significantly better ORtg's than Shaq's teams... this is because the triangle ran more optimally with Jordan as the focal point, than with Shaq as the focal point - there is no other way to explain the Bulls significantly higher team ORtgs.

the reason for the Bulls more optimal and successful triangle is simple: while shaq's scoring (like any dominant big) forces teammates to sacrifice and restrict their movements by positioning themselves appropriately to get him the ball inside, jordan's off-ball play does not restrict his teammates in any way, which enabled the Bulls' triangle to be less rigid and predictable.

Also, it should be noted that Shaq's talented Lakers got smashed by the Utah Jazz 4-1 in the 1997 WCSF, and swept by the Jazz in the 1998 WCF - of course, Jordan went on to personally destroy both of these Jazz teams.





and finally, the advanced metric, RAPM, which stabilizes individual impact, puts shaq atop of everyone with a 6.3 rating. michael jordan by contrast rated 4.3, just behind his teammate scottie pippen, who had ~4.6 (this goes back to team strength and overall help).


where are you getting your RAPM data?... The data I'm seeing was linked from the APBR metrics board - it says Jordan was 2nd in 1997 RAPM with 5.84... Scottie had 5.44... and Shaq's was 4.17.

http://apbr.org/metrics/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8536
http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2013/10/introducing-1990s-rapm.html

[mehyaM24]

We know that MJ had less help than guys like Bird, Lebron, and Kobe, because in order to win his rings, MJ needed to average 10 MORE ppg in the Finals then those guys did... there is no way MJ had more help, but somehow still had to score that many more ppg in the Finals.

RAPM suggests scottie pippen had JUST AS MUCH impact to that 97 bulls team as jordan did.

http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/1997.html


Shaq had way more supporting help than Jordan, but Jordan's teams had significantly better ORtg's than Shaq's teams... this is because the triangle ran more optimally with Jordan as the focal point, than with Shaq as the focal point - there is no other way to explain the Bulls significantly higher team ORtgs.

once again, rapm, which individualizes impact per possessions, suggests the bulls had MORE help per player. scottie pippen anybody? :confusedshrug:


where are you getting your RAPM data?... The data I'm seeing was linked from the APBR metrics board - it says Jordan was 2nd in 1997 RAPM with 5.84... Scottie had 5.44... and Shaq's was 4.17.

http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/1997.html

^the guy who created this website ALSO does the "real RAPM" ratings for ESPN.

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM

[Shep]

rapm this rapm that. shut the **** up and watch games you dumb ****

[mehyaM24]

rapm this rapm that. shut the **** up and watch games you dumb ****
watch your tongue, or see yourself out of my thread.

i watch game tape and back my opinions with hard data. you simply can't go wrong using BOTH.

[Overdrive]

a tiny amount? sure. but i've made a few threads (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=364466) on this already. the lakers as a whole outside of shaq completely went ghost against utah. both years.

That's exactly what I fault him for, he played great, but he wasn't mentally ready yet to win it all. I don't think those squads play like that with 2000 Shaq and I'm not talking about stats or oncourt impact.

I wish Eddie Jones was on the three peat teams..

[juju151111]

Shaq played like 51 games that season

[3ball]

http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/1997.html


Flpiii said the guy who created the site that you referenced above for RAPM, didn't have digitized play-by-play before 2001, which is crucial to obtain RAPM - your site just uses boxscore data and is not a real RAPM:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10896810&postcount=62

otoh, the APBR metrics site used by ESPN that I posted previously, DOES have digitized play-by-play, so it IS a true RAPM...

from now on, we should refer to the APBR metrics board instead of the site you posted, since the one you posted isn't a real RAPM.

here's the APBR metrics site that has the real 1997 RAPM:

http://apbr.org/metrics/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8536
http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2013/10/introducing-1990s-rapm.html
.

[julizaver]

i'm not interested with perception. i watched all throughout the 90s and save for 90-92ish, i never ONCE thought jordan was the clear-cut, best player. not even close actually.

RAPM, one of the best advanced metrics for gauging a players individual impact (less margin of error than a stat like PER), merely backs my opinion on the matter. neutralizing the individuals impact, it shows us that players who essentially had the same ROLE did what they did, and how they directly changed their respective teams' outcome.

of course, jordan was the most skilled perimeter player at the time. perhaps the greatest volume scorer in history, as well - but in team basketball its IMPACT>SKILL, every. single. time. (why i would take shaq & kareem > hakeem)


So in 1993 who was the best player in the league - Barkley who won the MVP or Jordan who was FMVP with an NBA record for ppg in the Finals or Hakeem ?

[mehyaM24]

Flpiii said the guy who created the site that you referenced above for RAPM, didn't have digitized play-by-play before 2001, which is crucial to obtain RAPM - your site just uses boxscore data and is not a real RAPM:

correct - but the data STILL has less margin of error than PER, winshares and most other advanced metrics.


otoh, the APBR metrics site used by ESPN that I posted previously, DOES have digitized play-by-play, so it IS a true RAPM...

this is NPI though. like "fake" regressed rapm, you dont get the results RPI gives you (RPI = defacto 100% rapm from 1998-now).

also keep in mind, this metric i use isn't the END ALL BE ALL when i determine and evaluate who the best players are.

so in conclusion: http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com - will be used as a reference point for these threads despite 1996 and below being "fake" RAPM (still better than most adjusted stats).

hope that clears up any confusion.

[mehyaM24]

So in 1993 who was the best player in the league - Barkley who won the MVP or Jordan who was FMVP with an NBA record for ppg in the Finals or Hakeem ?
i'm referring to their careers. players, shaq/kareem, i would draft over hakeem.

with that said, i have maintained on a number of occasions that 93-95 was hakeem's league.

[3ball]

correct - but the data STILL has less margin of error than PER, winshares and most other advanced metrics.



this is NPI though. like "fake" regressed rapm, you dont get the results RPI gives you (RPI = defacto 100% rapm from 1998-now).

also keep in mind, this metric i use isn't the END ALL BE ALL when i determine and evaluate who the best players are.

so in conclusion: http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com - will be used as a reference point for these threads despite 1996 and below being "fake" RAPM (still better than most adjusted stats).

hope that clears up any confusion.
Prior-Informed RAPM is the best version of RAPM, but Non-Prior-Informed with digitized play-by-play is 2nd best, and vastly superior to the fake boxscore RAPM with no play-by-play from the stats-for-the-nba site you referenced.

you can't use the stats-for-the-nba site, when it's RAPMs prior to 2001 are useless boxscore stats, and inferior to the NPI RAPM from the ABPR metrics site that has digitized play-by-play.

[juju151111]

i'm referring to their careers. players, shaq/kareem, i would draft over hakeem.

with that said, i have maintained on a number of occasions that 93-95 was hakeem's league.
Didn't Shaw only play 51 games in 97

[3ball]

with that said, i have maintained on a number of occasions that 93-95 was hakeem's league.


what a joke - in 1993, hakeem got bounced in the 2nd round.

meanwhile, jordan broke the Finals PPG record and 3-peated... the first time anyone had 3-peated since the 60's Celtics.

[mehyaM24]

Prior-Informed RAPM is the best version of RAPM, but Non-Prior-Informed with digitized play-by-play is 2nd best, and vastly superior to the fake boxscore RAPM with no play-by-play from the stats-for-the-nba site you referenced.

vastly? i dont know about that, but it is better. UNTIL we get data for 1996 and prior, stats-for-the-nba (made by ESPN's founder of RAPM) still has the best alternative.


you can't use the stats-for-the-nba site, when it's RAPMs prior to 2001 are useless boxscore stats, and inferior to the NPI RAPM from the ABPR metrics site that has digitized play-by-play.

npi is included on this website for 2001 and later, but once again, it still has the only available RAPM prior to 97. this will continued to be used given that it is STILL better than all advanced metrics sans NPI/RPI RAPM that attempts to sterilize individual impact.

btw, in my 1998 thread, i pointed out shaq led all players with regressed AND rpi RAPM. cheers.

[mehyaM24]

what a joke - in 1993, hakeem got bounced in the 2nd round.

meanwhile, jordan broke the Finals PPG record and 3-peated... the first time anyone had 3-peated since the 60's Celtics.
you can bump my 1993 thread to discuss that year. i rather not derail this one.

i will say this.. hakeem led the league in blocks, was top 4 in scoring, rebounding, and 2nd in PER - simply did more for his team, as all major box score categories suggest (regression RAPM rates him ahead of jordan, as well).

[3ball]

vastly? i dont know about that, but it is better. UNTIL we get data for 1996 and prior, stats-for-the-nba (made by ESPN's founder of RAPM) still has the best alternative.


you are missing what Flpiii said - for a RAPM to have any legitimacy, it must be based upon digitized play-by-play... without this, it's just useless boxscore stats.

the site you referenced doesn't have digitized play-by-play prior to 2001, so the 1997 RAPM you referenced is based solely on boxscore data and is useless.

the site i referenced, HAS digitized play-by-play for it's 1997 RAPM, so it's a real RAPM, and more viable than your boxscore stats... http://apbr.org/metrics/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8536
.

[mehyaM24]

you are missing what Flpiii said - for a RAPM to have any legitimacy, it must be based upon digitized play-by-play... without this, it's useless boxscore stats.

the site i referenced HAS digitized play-by-play, so therefore, it's vastly better than the site you referenced, which doesn't have play-by-play, and instead is based solely on boxscore stats.
fplii also stated that it was "better than nothing", and that it had LESS margin of error than both PER and winshares - popular but majorly flawed stats if you attempt to weigh a players impact.

this site has play-by-play for 2001 and up, and the only site that has its version of RAPM prior to 96 (which again, is STILL better than MOST stats that attempt to measure equal values).

[3ball]

fplii also stated that it was "better than nothing", and that it had LESS margin of error than both PER and winshares - popular but majorly flawed stats if you attempt to weigh a players impact.


yeah - he was comparing RAPM to PER and winshares (i don't agree with him btw - i think RAPM hot garbage and less informative than PER and winshares).

but if we ARE going to look at 1997 RAPM, we can only look at a real version of RAPM that uses play-by-play data - this can be found here.. http://apbr.org/metrics/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8536

the site you referenced doesn't have play-by-play data for prior to 2001, so the 1997 RAPM you posted is not accurate and based solely on boxscore stats.

you should redo the OP and replace the fake RAPM data, with the real RAPM data.

[Da_Realist]

Shaq was lazy, unmotivated, missed a ton of games, fought with his coach and was not singularly focused on winning the title. Read between the lines and stuff your RAPM.


The relationship between Del Harris and Shaquille O'Neal has never been great, and in light of the Lakers recent struggles it turn another turn for the worst.

The L.A. Daily News is reporting that in the wake of yet another loss last week, this time to Orlando, O'Neal said the Lakers played "like when Del Harris used to be our coach, with no fire and no enthusiasm."

Harris, now an assistant coach with the Mavericks, was not one to let a dig ride without retaliation, did so Tuesday via the Dallas Morning News.

"It seems that Shaq apparently is speaking for himself, because guys like Eddie Jones and Nick Van Exel and Rick Fox and Derek Fisher and Kobe Bryant, those guys only play one way," Harris said. "They play with passion all the time. If he was holding out on us, then it's amazing we won that many games."

"(I) never did anything but support Shaq. He's got his rings, and I don't know why he would say this. It's unfair."

"Shaq missed 30 percent of the games when I had the pleasure of coaching him," Harris added. "And we won 62 percent of those games he missed. At that time, Kobe was 18 or 19 years old and wasn't able to get us 40 (points) a night. If we played without passion, it must have been good coaching, right?"

Read more at http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/157328/Shaq-rips-Harris-Del-rips-back#xcOm038QYimP8m1h.99

[julizaver]

i'm referring to their careers. players, shaq/kareem, i would draft over hakeem.

with that said, i have maintained on a number of occasions that 93-95 was hakeem's league.

MJ > Kareem > Shaq > Hakeem in careers.

94-95 was Hakeem's league. 1993 was Jordan's. Unless you are biased. Find me one single article at the time who claims that Hakeem bested Jordan in 1993.

And 1997 was still Jordan's year. It could be Shaq's year but he missed a lot of games (as I explained in another thread). He should have handle his body more properly.

[Elosha]

[QUOTE=mehyaM24]i'm not interested with perception. i watched all throughout the 90s and save for 90-92ish, i never ONCE thought jordan was the clear-cut, best player. not even close actually.

Wow. If you watched all throughout the 90's and didn't think Jordan was the clear cut best player, than you are in the tiny, tiny minority of those who know the game and watched during that era. But by all mean, keep swimming upstream and and trying to convince us otherwise. It's always amusing to hear some modern day stats being retrofitted in keeping with one's agenda. The rest of us will simply point to Jordan and Bulls defeating opponent after opponent, Jordan putting up incredible stats, and his clear cut, indisputable consensus as the best player of the 90's.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Anyone shocked that OP didn't have Jordan as the best player? Obvious agenda is obvious after 3 threads already. :oldlol:

[OldSchoolBBall]

Wow. If you watched all throughout the 90's and didn't think Jordan was the clear cut best player, than you are in the tiny, tiny minority of those who know the game and watched during that era. But by all mean, keep swimming upstream and and trying to convince us otherwise. It's always amusing to hear some modern day stats being retrofitted in keeping with one's agenda. The rest of us will simply point to Jordan and Bulls defeating opponent after opponent, Jordan putting up incredible stats, and his clear cut, indisputable consensus as the best player of the 90's.

He didn't watch anything. He's a Lebron fan who is trying to knock down Jordan's legacy to try and make Lebron look better. Pretty obvious.

[Kblaze8855]

We know that MJ had less help than guys like Bird, Lebron, and Kobe, because in order to win his rings, MJ needed to average 10 MORE ppg in the Finals then those guys did... there is no way MJ had more help, but somehow still had to score that many more ppg in the Finals.

Those two things have little or nothing to do with eachother....

[fpliii]

MJ IMO, Shaq missed too many games.

Regarding RAPM:

1) We don't have actual PI RAPM for that season. We do have real NPI RAPM for that season, but I'd be careful about using it:

http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2013/10/introducing-1990s-rapm.html

That being said, it's still based on things outside the box score, so it's pretty good.

2) The xRAPM on stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com mehyaM24 mentioned does come from J.E., the creator of RPM for ESPN, so it's very good as far as estimates are concerned. Not better than PI RAPM (which the regression is based on), but definitely better predictive value than standard box score measures like PER, WS, etc.

I personally wouldn't use either, since I'm very particular about the data I use, but if you guys want to use one or the other, there's no problem IMO. Both are valid, and tell you different things. I have no preference, one is actual NPI, one is a regression based on PI.

[mehyaM24]

yeah - he was comparing RAPM to PER and winshares (i don't agree with him btw - i think RAPM hot garbage and less informative than PER and winshares).

objective data and nuances in the numbers don't match what you're saying.


but if we ARE going to look at 1997 RAPM, we can only look at a real version of RAPM that uses play-by-play data - this can be found here.. http://apbr.org/metrics/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8536

rapm is just one tool of MANY i used in my OP (i also listed both players' PER's and raw outputs).


the site you referenced doesn't have play-by-play data for prior to 2001, so the 1997 RAPM you posted is not accurate and based solely on boxscore stats.

regressed rapm isn't neccessarily wrong, it just means there is another version of rapm beside it that measures impact a little more accurately.

so again, i will concede that jordan had a higher RAPM than shaq in 1997, although, it was never used as my SOLE argument here, thus the op stays.

"real rapm" suggests they were close, as well as game tape and other various metrics.

[mehyaM24]

MJ IMO, Shaq missed too many games.

Regarding RAPM:

1) We don't have actual PI RAPM for that season. We do have real NPI RAPM for that season, but I'd be careful about using it:

http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2013/10/introducing-1990s-rapm.html

That being said, it's still based on things outside the box score, so it's pretty good.

2) The xRAPM on stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com mehyaM24 mentioned does come from J.E., the creator of RPM for ESPN, so it's very good as far as estimates are concerned. Not better than PI RAPM (which the regression is based on), but definitely better predictive value than standard box score measures like PER, WS, etc.

I personally wouldn't use either, since I'm very particular about the data I use, but if you guys want to use one or the other, there's no problem IMO. Both are valid, and tell you different things. I have no preference, one is actual NPI, one is a regression based on PI.

:cheers:

and again, i have no problem with anyone picking jordan. i just dont believe it was clear-cut, in fact i think shaq makes a strong case for himself when we factor in the games he DID play (look at the numbers i posted in my OP) and overall postseason play in general. shaq was utterly dominant.