Look, I have Hakeem in my top 20 players of all-time. But the recent lists I have seen from younger guys all seem to put Hakeem as a top 10 or even (egad) top 5 player of all-time.
While overrating a great player such as Hakeem is nowhere near the sin that wildly overrating merely good players is (like Isiah Thomas and Kevin McHale - another recent trend, I see many lists with these guys ranked above Bob Pettit), I really cannot understand the trend.
First, it appears that the "Dream Shake" really has the young guys excited. Yes, Hakeem had a move that no one else has been able to exactly duplicate since. Great. So did George Gervin with his extreme finger roll and Bernard King with his half-beat jumper. OK, Does not make you a top 5 or top 10 player.
To place Hakeem as a top 10 player, you'd need to place him above guys like Bird, Magic and Bill Russell. If you look at the stat "MVP Award Shares" - Bird has 5.6, Magic 5.1, Russell 4.7. Haleem is 19th with 2.61, slightly behind Bob Pettit's 2.67.
Hakeem was only consider by voters to be a top 3 MVP candidate...........twice. 1992-93 and 1993-94. The year David supposedly "stole" his MVP, Hakeem actually finished 5th in MVP balloting. He never led the league in Win Shares or WS/48, he never led the league in VORP. He is not in the top 10 all-time in any of these stats.
The true argument that should be raging for or against Hakeem is whether he deserves to be higher on the all-time list than Bob Pettit, Moses Malone and/or David Robinson. This is the strata of player that Hakeem should be compared with. There is nothing at all in his record (either peak level or consistency over time) that suggests that he should be a top 10 or top 5 player.
So why the sudden surge in overrating? I would imagine it is because the young guys know that when Michael retired Hakeem won an MVP and won two titles. Well, the 1994 Rockets would have lost to a pretty average Knicks team had John Starks been able to make any wide open shot. And the 1995 Magic just collapsed after Nick Anderson blew game one by going 0-4 in the closing seconds of the game. Neither the Knicks nor the Magic were dynasties or dynasties in the making. Second, Michael Jordan has reportedly been recorded as saying that he feared Hakeem because he knew he couldn't stop him. That seems like an odd comment for Jordan to make, so it was probably just a subtle intended slam at some other player.
Of all-time playoff performers, Hakeem is 15th in Playoff Win Shares and tied for 16th in WS/48: http://bkref.com/tiny/kBCEW Of First-team all-NBA players, Hakeem has the 20th most Win Shares as a First-team all-NBA player: http://bkref.com/tiny/VpDUu Again, admirable. But when you have 73 Win Shares as an all-NBA player and Magic and Bird have over 120, how do you get ranked higher on all-time lists than they do? Because you were greater for a short period of time? That is not true either. Bird had 2 seasons better than Hakeem's best season; Magic had 4. Moses Malone had 4 seasons where he finished in the top 2 of MVP balloting, including three wins.
If we are judging players by team playoff success (an area where John Stockton and Karl Malone generally get killed in ratings) Hakeem's teams' career record in playoff series was 16-13. In 94 and 95 he was a combined 8-0, so the entire remainder of his career he was 8-13, including 9 first round exits and 3 failures to make the playoffs (including 1991-92 where Hakeem was 29 years old).
Stop and consider that for a second -- Hakeem played 18 seasons; his team reached the second round of the playoffs or better in only 6 of those seasons. Imagine the torching LeBron James would receive if two out of every three years his team was sitting home by Round 2. he would not be considered by some worthy of being even a top 50 player. Chris Paul has played 14 seasons and made the second round or better 5 times.
Karl Malone and Stockton were together for a 16 win and 18 loss playoff series record, and Karl added 3 wins and a loss for the 03-04 Lakers, so Karl was 19-19 in playoff series. Hakeem is not appreciably better.
(Bird's teams, BTW, 24-10 in playoff series).
So, anyway, I have no problem with Hakeem as a top 20 or even arguably top 15 player. He is not a top 10 player and certainly has no good argument to be a top 5 player. Let's PLEASE put an end to this one, and then we can move on to address the ridiculous overrating of Isiah and McHale.
Thursday, October 25, 2018
Wednesday, October 24, 2018
My 9-Day Business Trip -- Top 10 Moments
I will save my pat-down experience at DFW for another Blog entry. It didn't occur outside the U.S., and it, in any event, deserves its own entry.
10. Met someone in Europe who sold military product to North Korea in 1988. Discussed Kim Jung-Il's claim to have shot an 18 on an 18-hole course.
9. Ate at an Italian restaurant where the owner knew my client -- received at least $200 worth of free food and drink (plus we paid for more than that). Probably the friendliest restaurant experience I have ever had.
8. Set foot in Iceland on a layover -- the forecast for the entire 10-day period was 40 and raining. They had us walk off the plane, outside, through a steady rain, no cover, no umbrellas to a bus 30 yards away. Unclear why they could not move the bus closer to us. I can add that every building I saw in Iceland was made of some sort of corrugated metal. Apparently since there are no forests on Iceland they ship in as much corrugated metal as they can.
Reykjavik from the air resembled Madison, Wisconsin in size.
7. Flew over the tip of Greenland on the way home -- awfully cool to see a place basically no one will ever go to.
Foreign travel features a lot of heart-stopping moments, which will be featured in items 6-5-4
6. Reached Iceland, walked through the steady rain to the bus, entered the terminal and got in line for the flight that the board says is "London Heathrow". About 75% of the way to the gate the sign changed to "Tel Aviv." Now, it would be cool to go to Tel Aviv, but it is a ways from London. I just stayed in line - F it, London or Tel Aviv here I come! It was London.
5. In Dublin when they give me a boarding card, unnoticed by me was that while my flight left at 3:40 p.m. the boarding card says "Gate Closes at 2:05 p.m." I first notice this warning at 2:10 p.m. while having a snack. I sprint to the security line, sweating profusely, hoping no one notices that I cannot go forward to the gate. No one mentions anything at all. I am at the gate by 2:18. I stop sweating around 2:30. I have no idea whether the "Gate Closes" time was merely advisory, an error, or just not enforced.
4. At Gate 402, PA announcement, "For those Americans traveling to Chicago, please go to U.S. pre-screening by Gate 408." Now: a) I had been through pre-screening back around Gate 301; b) every video board in the place says "Chicago - Gate 402"; and c) I doubt there is even pre-screening down by Gate 408. I walk up to the gate agent - "Um, pre-screening at Gate 408?" Reply - what are you talking about? "The announcement said...." Reply - there was never any such announcement. Walk back to my seat, confused, 4 different Americans ask me, "So, do we go down to Gate 408?" Sorry folks, no, we are all just sharing a mass hallucination. Stay here.
3. I ate at a London restaurant that is considered the best/most popular new restaurant in London -- it was very good, not super awesome. But the two things that will stick with me are: a) every guy was 20+ years older than his date; b) every guy was a 4-6 out of 10 and his date was an 8-10. I am not sure you could attend a Miss USA pageant and see this many beautiful women in one location. Client had to guaranty that the table would spend 600 pounds or we couldn't get a table.
2. I am pretty sure my town car driver on the way back was either a spy or a representative of the Russian government, but he thought I was HILARIOUS (which further aroused my suspicions). And he also loved 1980s-90s NBA basketball. We talked Jordan/Shaq/Barkley for 15 minutes. At the end of the drive, he gave me his card and said, "Man, if you are ever in London again, I really want you to call and I will drive you around again. We can talk some NBA." The guys was like 40 years old.
1. I met up with an old law school friend, which I always enjoy. Her husband was SUPER pissed that his train was late and it took him 2 hours to reach the restaurant. But he bought me dinner anyway, an offer which I probably should not have accepted so quickly (but sometimes my dad's cheapness really comes out of my DNA).
"HM, let us buy you dinner."
Me - Really?
"Sure. Why not?"
Me - OK.
Lesson for all those who interact with me - never offer me free stuff. I will take it.
HM
10. Met someone in Europe who sold military product to North Korea in 1988. Discussed Kim Jung-Il's claim to have shot an 18 on an 18-hole course.
9. Ate at an Italian restaurant where the owner knew my client -- received at least $200 worth of free food and drink (plus we paid for more than that). Probably the friendliest restaurant experience I have ever had.
8. Set foot in Iceland on a layover -- the forecast for the entire 10-day period was 40 and raining. They had us walk off the plane, outside, through a steady rain, no cover, no umbrellas to a bus 30 yards away. Unclear why they could not move the bus closer to us. I can add that every building I saw in Iceland was made of some sort of corrugated metal. Apparently since there are no forests on Iceland they ship in as much corrugated metal as they can.
Reykjavik from the air resembled Madison, Wisconsin in size.
7. Flew over the tip of Greenland on the way home -- awfully cool to see a place basically no one will ever go to.
Foreign travel features a lot of heart-stopping moments, which will be featured in items 6-5-4
6. Reached Iceland, walked through the steady rain to the bus, entered the terminal and got in line for the flight that the board says is "London Heathrow". About 75% of the way to the gate the sign changed to "Tel Aviv." Now, it would be cool to go to Tel Aviv, but it is a ways from London. I just stayed in line - F it, London or Tel Aviv here I come! It was London.
5. In Dublin when they give me a boarding card, unnoticed by me was that while my flight left at 3:40 p.m. the boarding card says "Gate Closes at 2:05 p.m." I first notice this warning at 2:10 p.m. while having a snack. I sprint to the security line, sweating profusely, hoping no one notices that I cannot go forward to the gate. No one mentions anything at all. I am at the gate by 2:18. I stop sweating around 2:30. I have no idea whether the "Gate Closes" time was merely advisory, an error, or just not enforced.
4. At Gate 402, PA announcement, "For those Americans traveling to Chicago, please go to U.S. pre-screening by Gate 408." Now: a) I had been through pre-screening back around Gate 301; b) every video board in the place says "Chicago - Gate 402"; and c) I doubt there is even pre-screening down by Gate 408. I walk up to the gate agent - "Um, pre-screening at Gate 408?" Reply - what are you talking about? "The announcement said...." Reply - there was never any such announcement. Walk back to my seat, confused, 4 different Americans ask me, "So, do we go down to Gate 408?" Sorry folks, no, we are all just sharing a mass hallucination. Stay here.
3. I ate at a London restaurant that is considered the best/most popular new restaurant in London -- it was very good, not super awesome. But the two things that will stick with me are: a) every guy was 20+ years older than his date; b) every guy was a 4-6 out of 10 and his date was an 8-10. I am not sure you could attend a Miss USA pageant and see this many beautiful women in one location. Client had to guaranty that the table would spend 600 pounds or we couldn't get a table.
2. I am pretty sure my town car driver on the way back was either a spy or a representative of the Russian government, but he thought I was HILARIOUS (which further aroused my suspicions). And he also loved 1980s-90s NBA basketball. We talked Jordan/Shaq/Barkley for 15 minutes. At the end of the drive, he gave me his card and said, "Man, if you are ever in London again, I really want you to call and I will drive you around again. We can talk some NBA." The guys was like 40 years old.
1. I met up with an old law school friend, which I always enjoy. Her husband was SUPER pissed that his train was late and it took him 2 hours to reach the restaurant. But he bought me dinner anyway, an offer which I probably should not have accepted so quickly (but sometimes my dad's cheapness really comes out of my DNA).
"HM, let us buy you dinner."
Me - Really?
"Sure. Why not?"
Me - OK.
Lesson for all those who interact with me - never offer me free stuff. I will take it.
HM
Monday, October 15, 2018
Ariana Grande Dumps Pete Davidson
http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/inside-ariana-grande-and-pete-davidsons-split-he-is-incredibly-heartbroken-exclusive/ar-BBOqqNC?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=DELLDHP17
When I was 25, I met a woman named Jordan. Absolutely gorgeous, absolutely a gold digger. I always say, "We met in an elevator - she was wearing a swimsuit, and I was wearing a suit and tie. We both saw what we really were interested in seeing."
Anyway, whatever I am, I am. If I am in decent shape, I can be a good solid 7. If not, well, 5. She was a 9 or 10.
We dated for three weeks. Then she just absolutely dumped me. "This is ridiculous; it is going nowhere. We are done." The funny thing about it is, this 3 week experience does not make anywhere near close to my 10 worst experiences with females I dated. Why? Well, who could possibly expect that this would ever occur. It always hurts to be bumped, but I can tell you that in two weeks Pete Davidson will be 100% fine. He played a starring role in the NBA. So now he might have to go back to being a 9th man in the Spanish League, but you cannot take that brief moment of stardom away from him.
HM
When I was 25, I met a woman named Jordan. Absolutely gorgeous, absolutely a gold digger. I always say, "We met in an elevator - she was wearing a swimsuit, and I was wearing a suit and tie. We both saw what we really were interested in seeing."
Anyway, whatever I am, I am. If I am in decent shape, I can be a good solid 7. If not, well, 5. She was a 9 or 10.
We dated for three weeks. Then she just absolutely dumped me. "This is ridiculous; it is going nowhere. We are done." The funny thing about it is, this 3 week experience does not make anywhere near close to my 10 worst experiences with females I dated. Why? Well, who could possibly expect that this would ever occur. It always hurts to be bumped, but I can tell you that in two weeks Pete Davidson will be 100% fine. He played a starring role in the NBA. So now he might have to go back to being a 9th man in the Spanish League, but you cannot take that brief moment of stardom away from him.
HM
Wednesday, October 03, 2018
22.5 Plus and 30 Plus "Game Scores" -- Who is the Best?
The idea of a "Game Score" statistic is basically to determine whether someone had a good game or not (rather than me searching through the box score, what generally would these stats, when combined, say about a player.
A Game Score is calculated as noted here https://captaincalculator.com/sports/basketball/game-score-calculator/
That calculator will also allow you to plug in some standard values for a player and figure out what that guy is probably doing on a nightly basis. For example, LeBron so uniformly goes 27-7-7 with a steal and a block that the people have lobbied to have the 27-7-7 part called a "LeBron." So if you plug in those values and have him shoot 50% from the floor and 70% from the line and turn it over 4 times, that is a 20.1 Game Score.
It is fair to say that a typical LeBron "Game Score" would be pretty welcome news to any coach in the league for any guy he had. The inventor of Game Score says he intended for 10 to be a "good" starter Game Score. I would consider the scale (based upon reviews I have done) to be as follows:
Good bench Game Score - 7
OK Starter Game Score - 10
Good Night for a Starter - 15
Very Good - 22,5
Outstanding (top 2 in the league that night) - 30
Superstar Level (rare for even great players) - 40
Call the Media - 50
Historically great 60 (it has happened 3 times)
With that as a baseline, I considered this question -- what NBA greats have had the most 22.5+ and 30+ games, and, more importantly, what percentage of their overall games were at these levels?
There were 23 guys who appeared on at least one of the "most total games" lists, limited to the top 20 in either category.
Of these 23 guys, here are how they did in percentage of regular season games over 22.5 Game Score
1. Jordan 53%
James 51.3%
Durant 41.1%
Barkley 38.5%
David Robinson 35.6%
Karl Malone 35.5%
Larry Bird 34.3%
Shaq 34%
Hakeem 33.6%
Harden 33.5%
Curry 33.3%
Magic 33.2%
Iverson 31.2%
Nique 30.55%
Westbrook 30.3%
CP3 - 30%
Kobe 29.9%
Wade 29.8%
Clyde Drexler 25.7%
Dirk 21.5%
Stockton 20.2%
Garnett 19.9%
Duncan 19.3%
So, we should probably stop here. Basketball-reference.com has records back to 1980. So Bird and Magic are all in. Kareem only gets the declining part of his career, Wilt, Oscar, West, Mikan, Pettit get nothing.
And what we see is that Good Team Defense is not generally rewarded (Duncan, KG, Stockton, Wade, Kobe, CP3 all plus defenders) while big scoring generally is rewarded (Iverson and Dominique Wilkins are not better players than KG or Duncan).
But, if you do a grading curve and say 10% get A's, 25% get B's, 35% get C's, 20% get Ds and 10% get Fs, you'd have
2 As - Jordan, James,
1 A minus -- Durant
1 B+ Barkley
6 Bs -- David, Karl, Bird, Shaq, Hakeem, Harden
8 Cs - Curry, Magic, Iverson, Nique, Westbrook, CP3, Kobe, Wade
1 D+ Drexler
2 Ds - Dirk, Stockton
1 D minus - Garnett
1 F - Duncan
On the 30 Plus Game Score, Michael Jordan so completely dominates this stat that he gets an A+ and literally no one else deserves an A. Michael destroys the curve.
1 A plus -- Jordan 24%
1 B+ - James 14.3%
8 Bs - Barkley 13.2%, Harden 12.95%, Bird 12.5%, David 11.6%, Curry 11.4%, Durant and Hakeem 10.5%, Shaq 10.3%
5 Cs - Magic 9.7%, Karl Malone 9.4%, Iverson 8.9%, Westbrook 8.8%, Kobe 8.3%
4 D's -- Wade & Nique 7.8%, Clyde 7.5%, CP3 7.3%
4 Fs -- Dirk, Stockton, KG, Duncan (all under 4%).
The lesson here is that a Game Score of 30 is pretty rare, even for great players. Jordan did it every 4 games, James every 7 games, but generally doing it even once out of every 8 games is pretty awesome and every 10 games is hard to do even for all-time greats.
If you drop down to 15+ as a Game Score, you will see that Jordan and James and Durant all are "good" or better 80% of the time (Jordan and James 81%, Durant 79%). Charles and Karl are in the 70s and then everyone else is in the 60s or 50s. Remarkably, Bird only had a 15+ Game Score 53% of the time, next to last after Stockton (50%).
We can examine that another time, but what is the answer here? Who are the best and most consistent in the 22.5 and 30 Game Scores?
The guys who are top 12 players in those categories combined:
12th - Magic (ekes in, by far the least consistent of these 12)
11th - Shaq
10th - Curry (wins tie with Shaq as Curry has a 7th place v. Shaq's 8th)
9th - Karl Malone
8th -- Hakeem
7th - Harden
6th - Durant
5th - David Robinson
4th - Bird
3rd - Barkley
2nd - James
1st - Jordan
Upside surprises - Harden, David, Barkley
Downside surprises - Kobe, Russ, CP3.
Monday, September 10, 2018
Serena Williams - Has Only Herself to Blame
In response to:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/tennis/serena-williams-us-open-controversy-comes-down-to-these-two-questions/ar-BBN6f6F?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=DELLDHP17
"This happens to me all of the time here!" wailed Serena Williams as she was given code of conduct penalties. Serena has played at the U.S. Open since 1998. She has had 4 incidents in which she thought she was wronged. In that same time period, she has won 6 U.S. Open titles.
So, to state that she has had bad things happen to her "all of the time" is ridiculous. If you play 20+ years, you are going to have 4 rough calls that you think are against you.
What do all of Serena's incidents have in common? 1) They occur when she is struggling or feels she is going to possibly lose. 2) They are made far worse than they need to be by her subsequent behavior.
In her 2018 incident, Serena's coach is called for illegal coaching. She says he never coached her. He says he always coaches her illegally, but it is a rule that is never called. So this is sort of like an offensive lineman arguing that he wasn't holding and his coach saying, "Of course he was holding, that is how we teach them to block - it is never called."
Now, let's assume that we can trust Serena's coach and he was coaching but it is never called. What occurs here is basically like LeBron James early in a Finals game being called for a touch foul when guarding a guy out front. It is either a bad call or a call that is just never made. LeBron now has two choices - he can either lose his mind or he can say "Geez, come on" and adjust his play accordingly. I'd strongly suggest option #2.
Asked after the match whether the chair umpire and she had run-ins in the past, Serena said no. She said the umpire had actually done many of her matches and performed quite well. Therefore, based upon her own words, she has no reason to suspect person bias or animus against her. What happened is you had a good referee make a bad call against you.
Serena is struggling with Naomi Osaka. Serena is concerned she is going to lose. She makes a bad shot. She then absolutely crushes her racket. This is, 100% of the time, a code violation. The refs will look the other way if you just skim the ground or abuse the racket a little. If you crush it and break the frame, that is a code violation 100% of the time. Serena now loses a point.
This is where things get weird. Serena thinks it should be a warning. No - you got the coaching warning for your warning, this is now a point. WHAT!?!? I got a coaching warning? Look, if you got a coaching warning; that was the time to contest that issue. Now that you have lost a point, you suddenly feel offended? "I have a kid. I don't cheat." Huh? What sort of claim/statement is that? I know a lot of players with a lot of kids. Many of those players cheat.
But now Serena (again, who is losing) suddenly sees the world is against her. She demands an apology.
This is sort of like LeBron in my example above walking up to the ref in the 3rd quarter after foul #4 and saying, "You owe me an apology for foul #1. Remember back them? I don't cheat; I have three kids." That sort of exchange would be unthinkable. But Serena is losing; she is melting down; the world is against her. She oddly pulls out the "I am a mom" argument.
The chair umpire, unsurprisingly, fails to provide the requested apology. This further angers Serena. Now she sees a vast conspiracy against her to deny her the title she wants. But we know at this point that Serena has two conduct violations; this is basically playing with four fouls. This is not the time to tempt fate. Serena now pushes her chips all in, "You are a thief. You stole a point from me."
Now, I have played a lot of sports and coached a lot of sports. I have had CONSTANT problems with officials. All of the time. You want to know what "all of the time" is? Basically every game. I don't care for officials, and I generally think they don't do a great job. That said, the general thing I would do in these situations is complain and complain and complain and then if the official told me to shut up, I'd shut up. I only have ever received two technical fouls. I have complained to referees 5,000+ times.
And I can tell you this - other than swearing at an official, the one thing they do NOT like is if you question their integrity. You can get away with saying a call was awful or hurt your club or saying "how can you possibly miss that?" What you cannot get away with - stuff like "Call it both ways" and "We all know who is supposed to win here." They do NOT appreciate that. And for good reason. As a general rule, they are trying. They may be bad, but they are trying. So if you state or imply that they are dishonest or biased, you're treading on very thin ice. If you call someone a mother-fucker or say they suck, that, in a way, is better than saying/implying that they are cheating against you.
Against that background, Serena should have known that she shouldn't have impugned the integrity of the umpire. The umpire in that situation now has been called a thief - dishonest, biased. He now has three options - 1) pretend he didn't hear it; 2) issue what James Blake calls a "soft warning" (hey, don't say that again); or 3) give a code violation (1 game penalty).
Now, since the whole thing is being recorded and the sound amplified, it is hard to do #1, particularly when Serena has been in your face about it already and demanded that you apologize for trying to do your job. If you do #2, you know what happens? Serena says, "Yeah? Well, you're a thief." and after the match she says "He baited me! I was just minding my own business and he knew I was upset and he baited me!" The chair umpire, eschewing these two worse options, did #3.
Now, the defenses of Serena are:
(A) She was treated unfairly because she is a woman. McEnroe did basically the same thing in a 1990 Australian Open match that he was LEADING in, and he was straight out defaulted.
Since Serena's opponent was, herself, a woman, it is a miracle that she somehow was able to abide by the conduct rules during such an unfair, anti-woman job of refereeing. Yet, like Michael Scott, Somehow She Managed.
It really does a huge disservice to women to claim that when a ref doesn't officiate as you want that he is somehow anti-woman. That sort of claim actually sets women back and separates them from men in a negative manner. I saw Anthony Davis get ejected from an NBA game last year. He deserved it. I wanted to watch him play, but he was gone; straight tossed. But he deserved it. He felt he was getting a raw deal and he said too much. Why should Serena get a pass because she is a woman?
(B) She should have been treated differently because she was Serena. Um, what do people CONSTANTLY bitch about with the NBA? Star players getting star treatment. Look, there is no evidence this umpire hated her. She herself said she'd never had any issues with him. So what the umpire was supposed to do (if we assume the coaching call was wrong) was spend the remainder of the match ignoring further violations? Because she is Serena Williams? I mean, wow. Come on.
(C) Tennis has always rewarded bad behavior. What I found most amusing about this defense is that it refers to incidents back in 1977-87 to state that this has always been the case in tennis.
As someone who was around back in 1977-87, I can assure you that there were multiple calls in the media and elsewhere to outright ban McEnroe for his tantrums. Conners was given a little more leeway since people liked him more, but certainly no one in the media ever stood up and said, "Geez, that John McEnroe/Ilie Nastase, we really admire them! Good for them for sticking up for themselves!"
(It should be noted here that McEnroe's dysfunction was really a terrible anger management problem. It made no difference whether he was winning or losing, he was just a dick on the court. If he were up 5-0, 30-love and the linesman missed a call, he'd lose his mind. (See his default at Aussie 1990, where he was actually ahead). Similarly, being hopelessly behind didn't calm him either. McEnroe viewed a missed call as a personal affront, thus rendering the time or circumstances of the call irrelevant. McEnroe lobbied endlessly for instant replay, way back in the late 70s early 80s.
In any event, since McEnroe's last Grand Slam win in 1984, 34 years ago, who have been the non-Serena standard bearers for tennis? Lendl was constantly carping about calls, but he never really did anything that caused a scene (he was once given a misconduct warning by an umpire who explained that "3 hours of constant bitching and moaning, even without profanity, adds up to a warning") Sampras (deadly boring, hardly spoke), Agassi (flashy and trash talking to his opponent, did some complaining but certainly not anywhere near McEnroe's class), Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray. Absolutely none of these guys is known as someone who constantly confronts umpires. Djokovic and Nadal can be a tad whiny when things don't go their way, but they push the envelope VERY little. Federer, as a general rule, doesn't even like to challenge obvious missed calls.
On the women's side, Navratilova could be a little testy, but Evert was not, Graf was not, Seles was not, Hingis was not, Clijsters was not, Henin was not. So, again, we have to harken back 35 years to find someone who is a star tennis player who is a problem or who is "glorified" for abusive behavior.
This defense of Serena is apparently that Serena's behavior could have been a LOT worse. OK, granted. Roberto Alomar once spit on an umpire and he is now in the Hall of Fame. So what? Serena reached the point where she should have known under any reasonable review of the situation that she should have kept quiet. She did not. When you reach that point as an athlete, you are playing with fire and you might get burned. She got burned.
If Serena really felt she had to call the umpire a "thief" to "stand up for what she believed in (which is a ridiculous position to take), then she should be ecstatic that she was sanctioned for it. You really cannot have it both ways. If I go into court as a lawyer and get so screwed over by a judge that I say, "Your honor, you are corrupt," then I better mean it and I better be willing to go to jail for contempt. If, instead, I just don't like that I lost and I just am blowing off steam and saying something to make myself feel better, I then have............only myself to blame.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/tennis/serena-williams-us-open-controversy-comes-down-to-these-two-questions/ar-BBN6f6F?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=DELLDHP17
"This happens to me all of the time here!" wailed Serena Williams as she was given code of conduct penalties. Serena has played at the U.S. Open since 1998. She has had 4 incidents in which she thought she was wronged. In that same time period, she has won 6 U.S. Open titles.
So, to state that she has had bad things happen to her "all of the time" is ridiculous. If you play 20+ years, you are going to have 4 rough calls that you think are against you.
What do all of Serena's incidents have in common? 1) They occur when she is struggling or feels she is going to possibly lose. 2) They are made far worse than they need to be by her subsequent behavior.
In her 2018 incident, Serena's coach is called for illegal coaching. She says he never coached her. He says he always coaches her illegally, but it is a rule that is never called. So this is sort of like an offensive lineman arguing that he wasn't holding and his coach saying, "Of course he was holding, that is how we teach them to block - it is never called."
Now, let's assume that we can trust Serena's coach and he was coaching but it is never called. What occurs here is basically like LeBron James early in a Finals game being called for a touch foul when guarding a guy out front. It is either a bad call or a call that is just never made. LeBron now has two choices - he can either lose his mind or he can say "Geez, come on" and adjust his play accordingly. I'd strongly suggest option #2.
Asked after the match whether the chair umpire and she had run-ins in the past, Serena said no. She said the umpire had actually done many of her matches and performed quite well. Therefore, based upon her own words, she has no reason to suspect person bias or animus against her. What happened is you had a good referee make a bad call against you.
Serena is struggling with Naomi Osaka. Serena is concerned she is going to lose. She makes a bad shot. She then absolutely crushes her racket. This is, 100% of the time, a code violation. The refs will look the other way if you just skim the ground or abuse the racket a little. If you crush it and break the frame, that is a code violation 100% of the time. Serena now loses a point.
This is where things get weird. Serena thinks it should be a warning. No - you got the coaching warning for your warning, this is now a point. WHAT!?!? I got a coaching warning? Look, if you got a coaching warning; that was the time to contest that issue. Now that you have lost a point, you suddenly feel offended? "I have a kid. I don't cheat." Huh? What sort of claim/statement is that? I know a lot of players with a lot of kids. Many of those players cheat.
But now Serena (again, who is losing) suddenly sees the world is against her. She demands an apology.
This is sort of like LeBron in my example above walking up to the ref in the 3rd quarter after foul #4 and saying, "You owe me an apology for foul #1. Remember back them? I don't cheat; I have three kids." That sort of exchange would be unthinkable. But Serena is losing; she is melting down; the world is against her. She oddly pulls out the "I am a mom" argument.
The chair umpire, unsurprisingly, fails to provide the requested apology. This further angers Serena. Now she sees a vast conspiracy against her to deny her the title she wants. But we know at this point that Serena has two conduct violations; this is basically playing with four fouls. This is not the time to tempt fate. Serena now pushes her chips all in, "You are a thief. You stole a point from me."
Now, I have played a lot of sports and coached a lot of sports. I have had CONSTANT problems with officials. All of the time. You want to know what "all of the time" is? Basically every game. I don't care for officials, and I generally think they don't do a great job. That said, the general thing I would do in these situations is complain and complain and complain and then if the official told me to shut up, I'd shut up. I only have ever received two technical fouls. I have complained to referees 5,000+ times.
And I can tell you this - other than swearing at an official, the one thing they do NOT like is if you question their integrity. You can get away with saying a call was awful or hurt your club or saying "how can you possibly miss that?" What you cannot get away with - stuff like "Call it both ways" and "We all know who is supposed to win here." They do NOT appreciate that. And for good reason. As a general rule, they are trying. They may be bad, but they are trying. So if you state or imply that they are dishonest or biased, you're treading on very thin ice. If you call someone a mother-fucker or say they suck, that, in a way, is better than saying/implying that they are cheating against you.
Against that background, Serena should have known that she shouldn't have impugned the integrity of the umpire. The umpire in that situation now has been called a thief - dishonest, biased. He now has three options - 1) pretend he didn't hear it; 2) issue what James Blake calls a "soft warning" (hey, don't say that again); or 3) give a code violation (1 game penalty).
Now, since the whole thing is being recorded and the sound amplified, it is hard to do #1, particularly when Serena has been in your face about it already and demanded that you apologize for trying to do your job. If you do #2, you know what happens? Serena says, "Yeah? Well, you're a thief." and after the match she says "He baited me! I was just minding my own business and he knew I was upset and he baited me!" The chair umpire, eschewing these two worse options, did #3.
Now, the defenses of Serena are:
(A) She was treated unfairly because she is a woman. McEnroe did basically the same thing in a 1990 Australian Open match that he was LEADING in, and he was straight out defaulted.
Since Serena's opponent was, herself, a woman, it is a miracle that she somehow was able to abide by the conduct rules during such an unfair, anti-woman job of refereeing. Yet, like Michael Scott, Somehow She Managed.
It really does a huge disservice to women to claim that when a ref doesn't officiate as you want that he is somehow anti-woman. That sort of claim actually sets women back and separates them from men in a negative manner. I saw Anthony Davis get ejected from an NBA game last year. He deserved it. I wanted to watch him play, but he was gone; straight tossed. But he deserved it. He felt he was getting a raw deal and he said too much. Why should Serena get a pass because she is a woman?
(B) She should have been treated differently because she was Serena. Um, what do people CONSTANTLY bitch about with the NBA? Star players getting star treatment. Look, there is no evidence this umpire hated her. She herself said she'd never had any issues with him. So what the umpire was supposed to do (if we assume the coaching call was wrong) was spend the remainder of the match ignoring further violations? Because she is Serena Williams? I mean, wow. Come on.
(C) Tennis has always rewarded bad behavior. What I found most amusing about this defense is that it refers to incidents back in 1977-87 to state that this has always been the case in tennis.
As someone who was around back in 1977-87, I can assure you that there were multiple calls in the media and elsewhere to outright ban McEnroe for his tantrums. Conners was given a little more leeway since people liked him more, but certainly no one in the media ever stood up and said, "Geez, that John McEnroe/Ilie Nastase, we really admire them! Good for them for sticking up for themselves!"
(It should be noted here that McEnroe's dysfunction was really a terrible anger management problem. It made no difference whether he was winning or losing, he was just a dick on the court. If he were up 5-0, 30-love and the linesman missed a call, he'd lose his mind. (See his default at Aussie 1990, where he was actually ahead). Similarly, being hopelessly behind didn't calm him either. McEnroe viewed a missed call as a personal affront, thus rendering the time or circumstances of the call irrelevant. McEnroe lobbied endlessly for instant replay, way back in the late 70s early 80s.
In any event, since McEnroe's last Grand Slam win in 1984, 34 years ago, who have been the non-Serena standard bearers for tennis? Lendl was constantly carping about calls, but he never really did anything that caused a scene (he was once given a misconduct warning by an umpire who explained that "3 hours of constant bitching and moaning, even without profanity, adds up to a warning") Sampras (deadly boring, hardly spoke), Agassi (flashy and trash talking to his opponent, did some complaining but certainly not anywhere near McEnroe's class), Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray. Absolutely none of these guys is known as someone who constantly confronts umpires. Djokovic and Nadal can be a tad whiny when things don't go their way, but they push the envelope VERY little. Federer, as a general rule, doesn't even like to challenge obvious missed calls.
On the women's side, Navratilova could be a little testy, but Evert was not, Graf was not, Seles was not, Hingis was not, Clijsters was not, Henin was not. So, again, we have to harken back 35 years to find someone who is a star tennis player who is a problem or who is "glorified" for abusive behavior.
This defense of Serena is apparently that Serena's behavior could have been a LOT worse. OK, granted. Roberto Alomar once spit on an umpire and he is now in the Hall of Fame. So what? Serena reached the point where she should have known under any reasonable review of the situation that she should have kept quiet. She did not. When you reach that point as an athlete, you are playing with fire and you might get burned. She got burned.
If Serena really felt she had to call the umpire a "thief" to "stand up for what she believed in (which is a ridiculous position to take), then she should be ecstatic that she was sanctioned for it. You really cannot have it both ways. If I go into court as a lawyer and get so screwed over by a judge that I say, "Your honor, you are corrupt," then I better mean it and I better be willing to go to jail for contempt. If, instead, I just don't like that I lost and I just am blowing off steam and saying something to make myself feel better, I then have............only myself to blame.
Thursday, July 26, 2018
Sorting Through Old NBA MVP Award Voting Results
Sorting through some old MVP voting results on basketball-reference.com, I came up with some interesting tidbits:
1) Not all MVP balloting is the same. For example, many years only First Place ballots were requested. So, someone like LeBron James in 2017-18 got a higher "share" of potential "points" than did George Gervin in 1977-78, even though Gervin got more first place votes.
2) Voters have always been weird. In 1956-57, 12 guys received first place votes. Now, I realize that a league might be fairly even in talent level, but it seems hard to believe that 12 guys were deserving of 1st place MVP votes. Were people really uncertain as to whether Mel Hutchins was a better player than Cousy or Pettit? Cuz, ya know, Pettit lost by 2 votes, so maybe he could have used Hutchins' vote and/or Ray Felix's vote?
Similarly, in 1979-80, a voter split his vote between Julius Erving and Gus Williams, thus leaving Doc with 31.5 first-place votes. There appeared to be absolutely no good reason for doing this, but it was done. Similarly, were there really 2 people in 1979-80 who believed Dan Roundfield was the best player in the entire league?
Kelvin Ransey in 1980-81 received a first-place vote. He received no other votes. He had 2.8 Win Shares. Someone apparently believed he was more valuable than either MVP Julius Erving or runner up Larry Bird. Ransey's season was roughly half as good as the season of Caldwell Jones, who received one 11th place vote that same year
.
3) The stretch of MVP balloting from 1968 to 1979 is awfully rough to look at. Winners include Wes Unseld, Willis Reed, Dave Cowens, and Bill Walton. None of these players had particularly great years (McAdoo in 1975 and 1976 when he finished 1-2 at least had historically great years).
A fairly good argument could be made that Kareem (won in 1971-72-74-76-77) should have won 3 or 4 MORE MVPs than he did! (Kareem's 1972-73 season he went 30-16-5 and had 22 Win Shares, He finished second to Dave Cowens' 20-16-4 with 12 Win Shares).
4) Wilt had ridiculous seasons where he failed to win MVP. Wilt went 50-25 in 1961-62, finished 2nd. Wilt followed that up with a 44-24 and finished.......7th (0 first-place votes). But 1963-64 is the true crime. Wilt posted arguably the best season of all-time - 37 points, 22 rebounds, 5 assists, 25 Win Shares, .325 Win Shares per 48. Won their division, reached the Finals, second best player was Tom Meschery.
Wilt posted the only season to that point (he later had another) where a player had over 10 offensive WS and over 10 defensive WS. Wilt finished second to Oscar.
It was seemingly the case that when Wilt had huge numbers the voters felt huge numbers did not matter, but when other posted huge numbers, suddenly huge numbers mattered.
5) There is a belief on Twitter that somehow "Steve Nash screwed Kobe out of the MVP" in two straight years. This is simply false. In 2004-05, Nash probably should have lost to Miami Shaq, that is true, but Kobe received 0 votes. Not 0 first-place votes.....0 votes. Not top 15 in balloting. In 2005-06, look, it was a terrible season overall (Heat beat Mavs in Finals). But Kobe did not lead the league in WS or WS/48 (he was 4th in both) and he finished 4th in balloting. His team was 45-37 and lost in the first round of the playoffs. Sorry, he was not "screwed". Now, should Nash (8th in WS, 8th in WS/48) have won? Probably not, but.......
6) It is a common thread running through MVP results that point guards are generally overrated and get more MVP votes/awards than they deserve based upon their production. Evidence?
Cousy in 1956-57 was a far worse player than Bob Pettit - Cousy won
Oscar should have lost to Wilt 1963-64
Magic probably should have lost to Jordan in 1989 and 1990 (or Barkley 1990)
Iverson was 8th in WS and 9th in WS/48 when he defeated Duncan and Shaq in 2000-01
Jason Kidd finished 2nd to Tim Duncan in 2001-02 when Kidd was 13th in the league in WS and 14th in WS/48
Nash probably did not deserve to win either 2005 or 2006 and Nash finished SECOND AGAIN in 2007! In none of those years was Nash top 4 in Win Shares.
Derrick Rose in 2011 was 4th in the league in WS and 6th in WS/48. Not only did he defeat LeBron,
Dwight Howard and Kobe, but he absolutely DESTROYED them in MVP balloting - 113-4-3-1 in first place votes. So, in other words, while Rose was probably a top 5 player, voters treated his season as if it were Jordan 1996. It wasn't.
Curry and Harden had roughly the same season in 2014-15. Curry smoked Harden 100-25 in MVP balloting
Harden was the better player in 2016-17, but Russ' triple double gained him the nod over Harden.
7) The decision of voters to register a single vote for Carmelo in 2013 (over LeBron) and for Iverson over Shaq (2000) can only be seen as incredibly vindictive and designed just to hurt the legacies of those two winners. These were two of the greatest seasons of all-time, yet one voter felt the need to somehow poke his finger in the eye of the winner.
Even odder in the case of these two votes? The decision to vote for Melo/Iverson could have been better handled by voting for some more deserving player. For example, a Garnett/Durant set of votes in 2000/2013 would have looked far less like a "screw you" to LeBron/Shaq.
Similarly, the decision of voters to give 2 votes to Jermaine O'Neal and 1 vote to Peja in 2004 denied Garnett what should have been a unanimous MVP (Duncan only played 69 games, he finished 2nd overall in the race).
8) My list of the 36 best players of all-time generally contains the 1st and 2nd place winners of every year, except for the following:
Winners not in my top 36 -- Wes Unseld, Willis Reed, Dave Cowens, Bob McAdoo, Bill Walton, Iverson, Rose, Westbrook.
2nd place guys not mentioned above and not in my top 36 -- Dolph Schayes, Nate Thurmond, Lenny Wilkens, George Gervin, Bernard King, Nique, Clyde Drexler, Alonzo Mourning, Jason Kidd, Dwight Howard, Kawhi Leonard.
Winners and Runners Up Since 1956-57 (controversial results in my opinion are listed in ALL CAPS)
1955-56 Petit over Arizin
56-57 -- COUSY over PETTIT
57-58 Russell over Schayes
58-59 Pettit over Russell
59-60 Wilt over Russell
60-61 Russell over Pettit
61-62Russell over Wilt
63-64 Russell over Baylor
1963-64 OSCAR OVER WILT
64-65 Russell over Oscar
65-66 Wilt over West
66-67 Wilt over Nate Thurmond
67-68 Wilt over Lenny Wilkins
1968-69 UNSELD OVER REED (Unseld not top 5 in WS)
69-70 Reed over West
70-71 Kareem over West
1972-73 COWENS OVER KAREEM
73-74 Kareem over McAdoo
74-75 McAdoo over Cowens
75-76 Kareem over McAdoo
76-77 Kareem over Walton
1977-78 WALTON OVER GERVIN (Walton played 58 games and had 8 WS, David Thompson or Gervin should have won MVP....or Kareem)
78-79 Moses over Gervin
79-80 Kareem over Doc
80-81 Doc over Bird
81-82 Moses over Bird
82-83 Moses over Bird
83-84 Bird over Bernard King
84-85 Bird over Magic
85-86 Bird over Dominique Wilkins
86-87 Magic over Jordan
87-88 Jordan over Bird
88-89 Magic over Jordan (this vote also involved 1/2 votes for MVP - a voter split his vote between
Johnson and Jordan)
1989-90 MAGIC OVER BARKLEY - Magic actually had fewer first-place votes than Barkley!!
(27-38) but the presence of Jordan (21 firsts) gave Barkley enough bad ballots that he lost, becoming the only MVP loser to get the most first-place votes - something that in many years was not possible, because only first-place votes were cast.
1990-91 Jordan over Magic
91-92 Jordan over Clyde Drexler
92-93 Barkley over Olajuwon
1993-94 HAKEEM over DAVID ROBINSON - while the urban legend is that David stole Hakeem's MVP in 1995, the fact is that David had 20 WS to Hakeem's 14 here. In fact, Shaq had a better year than Hakeem and also would have been a better regular season MVP.
1994-95 David over Shaq (again, note, this is where lore states that Hakeem was screwed and got revenge in the playoffs; Hakeem's 1995 wasn't a great year, 9th in WS, received one 1st place vote.
1995-96 Jordan over David
1996-97 KARL MALONE OVER MICHAEL JORDAN
This certainly is not a hugely controversial result (Malone had a HUGE year) but Jordan was still the better player and he had the slightly better year. Certainly when you consider that Jordan would fall one MVP short of Kareem, this one and 1989-90 have to sting.
97-98 Jordan over Karl Malone
98-99 Karl over Zo (50 game year - was a weird year, Karl deserved the award)
1999-2000 Shaq over KG
2000-01 IVERSON OVER DUNCAN -- Shaq, Duncan and Garnett were the league's 3 best players
2001-02 Duncan over Kidd (very weird that this was a close vote, Duncan the far superior player)
2002-03 Duncan over KG (note - this was the MONSTER year for Tracy McGrady, didn't do much for him - he finished 4th)
2003-04 KG over Duncan (worthy of note how great of a year Peja Stoyakovic had - roughly 30% better than any year he ever had. This is the only year he ever had where he was top 10 in either VORP or WS....still didn't deserve his one first-place vote)! Jermaine O'Neal received one of his 2 first-place votes because a writer felt "I don't like how KG treats us in the locker room"
2004-05 NASH OVER MIAMI SHAQ (note the number of times Shaq gets under-voted)
2005-06 NASH OVER LeBRON (probably should have been Dirk or LeBron)
06-07 Dirk over Nash (as stated above this was actually Nash's best year)
07-08 Kobe over CP3
08-09 LeBron over Kobe
2009-10 LeBron over Durant
2010-11 DERRICK ROSE OVER DWIGHT HOWARD (three best players were James, Howard, CP3) The denial of LeBron here prevented him from winning 5 straight, no one has ever won even 4 straight.
11-12 James over Durant
12-13 James over Durant (this is the bizarre Melo first-place vote year)
13-14 Durant over James ("the real MVP" speech)
14-15 Curry over Harden (two guys had almost the same stats, HUGE blowout win for Curry)
15-16 Curry unanimous over Kawhi -- now, Curry had a top 15 all-time season, but that does not answer the question of why he was suddenly unanimous MVP when others had had similar seasons before:
http://bkref.com/tiny/rzugk and not only NOT been unanimous winners, but had even lost!! with similar stats.
2016-17 WESTBROOK OVER HARDEN -- simply put, Harden had a better year than Westbrook, and Harden's team was better than Westbrook's. This is the triumph of Usage Rate over careful consideration. To make matters worse, the vote was not particularly close (69-22 in first-place votes)
finally
2017-18 Harden over LeBron
The end....for now.
1) Not all MVP balloting is the same. For example, many years only First Place ballots were requested. So, someone like LeBron James in 2017-18 got a higher "share" of potential "points" than did George Gervin in 1977-78, even though Gervin got more first place votes.
2) Voters have always been weird. In 1956-57, 12 guys received first place votes. Now, I realize that a league might be fairly even in talent level, but it seems hard to believe that 12 guys were deserving of 1st place MVP votes. Were people really uncertain as to whether Mel Hutchins was a better player than Cousy or Pettit? Cuz, ya know, Pettit lost by 2 votes, so maybe he could have used Hutchins' vote and/or Ray Felix's vote?
Similarly, in 1979-80, a voter split his vote between Julius Erving and Gus Williams, thus leaving Doc with 31.5 first-place votes. There appeared to be absolutely no good reason for doing this, but it was done. Similarly, were there really 2 people in 1979-80 who believed Dan Roundfield was the best player in the entire league?
Kelvin Ransey in 1980-81 received a first-place vote. He received no other votes. He had 2.8 Win Shares. Someone apparently believed he was more valuable than either MVP Julius Erving or runner up Larry Bird. Ransey's season was roughly half as good as the season of Caldwell Jones, who received one 11th place vote that same year
.
3) The stretch of MVP balloting from 1968 to 1979 is awfully rough to look at. Winners include Wes Unseld, Willis Reed, Dave Cowens, and Bill Walton. None of these players had particularly great years (McAdoo in 1975 and 1976 when he finished 1-2 at least had historically great years).
A fairly good argument could be made that Kareem (won in 1971-72-74-76-77) should have won 3 or 4 MORE MVPs than he did! (Kareem's 1972-73 season he went 30-16-5 and had 22 Win Shares, He finished second to Dave Cowens' 20-16-4 with 12 Win Shares).
4) Wilt had ridiculous seasons where he failed to win MVP. Wilt went 50-25 in 1961-62, finished 2nd. Wilt followed that up with a 44-24 and finished.......7th (0 first-place votes). But 1963-64 is the true crime. Wilt posted arguably the best season of all-time - 37 points, 22 rebounds, 5 assists, 25 Win Shares, .325 Win Shares per 48. Won their division, reached the Finals, second best player was Tom Meschery.
Wilt posted the only season to that point (he later had another) where a player had over 10 offensive WS and over 10 defensive WS. Wilt finished second to Oscar.
It was seemingly the case that when Wilt had huge numbers the voters felt huge numbers did not matter, but when other posted huge numbers, suddenly huge numbers mattered.
5) There is a belief on Twitter that somehow "Steve Nash screwed Kobe out of the MVP" in two straight years. This is simply false. In 2004-05, Nash probably should have lost to Miami Shaq, that is true, but Kobe received 0 votes. Not 0 first-place votes.....0 votes. Not top 15 in balloting. In 2005-06, look, it was a terrible season overall (Heat beat Mavs in Finals). But Kobe did not lead the league in WS or WS/48 (he was 4th in both) and he finished 4th in balloting. His team was 45-37 and lost in the first round of the playoffs. Sorry, he was not "screwed". Now, should Nash (8th in WS, 8th in WS/48) have won? Probably not, but.......
6) It is a common thread running through MVP results that point guards are generally overrated and get more MVP votes/awards than they deserve based upon their production. Evidence?
Cousy in 1956-57 was a far worse player than Bob Pettit - Cousy won
Oscar should have lost to Wilt 1963-64
Magic probably should have lost to Jordan in 1989 and 1990 (or Barkley 1990)
Iverson was 8th in WS and 9th in WS/48 when he defeated Duncan and Shaq in 2000-01
Jason Kidd finished 2nd to Tim Duncan in 2001-02 when Kidd was 13th in the league in WS and 14th in WS/48
Nash probably did not deserve to win either 2005 or 2006 and Nash finished SECOND AGAIN in 2007! In none of those years was Nash top 4 in Win Shares.
Derrick Rose in 2011 was 4th in the league in WS and 6th in WS/48. Not only did he defeat LeBron,
Dwight Howard and Kobe, but he absolutely DESTROYED them in MVP balloting - 113-4-3-1 in first place votes. So, in other words, while Rose was probably a top 5 player, voters treated his season as if it were Jordan 1996. It wasn't.
Curry and Harden had roughly the same season in 2014-15. Curry smoked Harden 100-25 in MVP balloting
Harden was the better player in 2016-17, but Russ' triple double gained him the nod over Harden.
7) The decision of voters to register a single vote for Carmelo in 2013 (over LeBron) and for Iverson over Shaq (2000) can only be seen as incredibly vindictive and designed just to hurt the legacies of those two winners. These were two of the greatest seasons of all-time, yet one voter felt the need to somehow poke his finger in the eye of the winner.
Even odder in the case of these two votes? The decision to vote for Melo/Iverson could have been better handled by voting for some more deserving player. For example, a Garnett/Durant set of votes in 2000/2013 would have looked far less like a "screw you" to LeBron/Shaq.
Similarly, the decision of voters to give 2 votes to Jermaine O'Neal and 1 vote to Peja in 2004 denied Garnett what should have been a unanimous MVP (Duncan only played 69 games, he finished 2nd overall in the race).
8) My list of the 36 best players of all-time generally contains the 1st and 2nd place winners of every year, except for the following:
Winners not in my top 36 -- Wes Unseld, Willis Reed, Dave Cowens, Bob McAdoo, Bill Walton, Iverson, Rose, Westbrook.
2nd place guys not mentioned above and not in my top 36 -- Dolph Schayes, Nate Thurmond, Lenny Wilkens, George Gervin, Bernard King, Nique, Clyde Drexler, Alonzo Mourning, Jason Kidd, Dwight Howard, Kawhi Leonard.
Winners and Runners Up Since 1956-57 (controversial results in my opinion are listed in ALL CAPS)
1955-56 Petit over Arizin
56-57 -- COUSY over PETTIT
57-58 Russell over Schayes
58-59 Pettit over Russell
59-60 Wilt over Russell
60-61 Russell over Pettit
61-62Russell over Wilt
63-64 Russell over Baylor
1963-64 OSCAR OVER WILT
64-65 Russell over Oscar
65-66 Wilt over West
66-67 Wilt over Nate Thurmond
67-68 Wilt over Lenny Wilkins
1968-69 UNSELD OVER REED (Unseld not top 5 in WS)
69-70 Reed over West
70-71 Kareem over West
1972-73 COWENS OVER KAREEM
73-74 Kareem over McAdoo
74-75 McAdoo over Cowens
75-76 Kareem over McAdoo
76-77 Kareem over Walton
1977-78 WALTON OVER GERVIN (Walton played 58 games and had 8 WS, David Thompson or Gervin should have won MVP....or Kareem)
78-79 Moses over Gervin
79-80 Kareem over Doc
80-81 Doc over Bird
81-82 Moses over Bird
82-83 Moses over Bird
83-84 Bird over Bernard King
84-85 Bird over Magic
85-86 Bird over Dominique Wilkins
86-87 Magic over Jordan
87-88 Jordan over Bird
88-89 Magic over Jordan (this vote also involved 1/2 votes for MVP - a voter split his vote between
Johnson and Jordan)
1989-90 MAGIC OVER BARKLEY - Magic actually had fewer first-place votes than Barkley!!
(27-38) but the presence of Jordan (21 firsts) gave Barkley enough bad ballots that he lost, becoming the only MVP loser to get the most first-place votes - something that in many years was not possible, because only first-place votes were cast.
1990-91 Jordan over Magic
91-92 Jordan over Clyde Drexler
92-93 Barkley over Olajuwon
1993-94 HAKEEM over DAVID ROBINSON - while the urban legend is that David stole Hakeem's MVP in 1995, the fact is that David had 20 WS to Hakeem's 14 here. In fact, Shaq had a better year than Hakeem and also would have been a better regular season MVP.
1994-95 David over Shaq (again, note, this is where lore states that Hakeem was screwed and got revenge in the playoffs; Hakeem's 1995 wasn't a great year, 9th in WS, received one 1st place vote.
1995-96 Jordan over David
1996-97 KARL MALONE OVER MICHAEL JORDAN
This certainly is not a hugely controversial result (Malone had a HUGE year) but Jordan was still the better player and he had the slightly better year. Certainly when you consider that Jordan would fall one MVP short of Kareem, this one and 1989-90 have to sting.
97-98 Jordan over Karl Malone
98-99 Karl over Zo (50 game year - was a weird year, Karl deserved the award)
1999-2000 Shaq over KG
2000-01 IVERSON OVER DUNCAN -- Shaq, Duncan and Garnett were the league's 3 best players
2001-02 Duncan over Kidd (very weird that this was a close vote, Duncan the far superior player)
2002-03 Duncan over KG (note - this was the MONSTER year for Tracy McGrady, didn't do much for him - he finished 4th)
2003-04 KG over Duncan (worthy of note how great of a year Peja Stoyakovic had - roughly 30% better than any year he ever had. This is the only year he ever had where he was top 10 in either VORP or WS....still didn't deserve his one first-place vote)! Jermaine O'Neal received one of his 2 first-place votes because a writer felt "I don't like how KG treats us in the locker room"
2004-05 NASH OVER MIAMI SHAQ (note the number of times Shaq gets under-voted)
2005-06 NASH OVER LeBRON (probably should have been Dirk or LeBron)
06-07 Dirk over Nash (as stated above this was actually Nash's best year)
07-08 Kobe over CP3
08-09 LeBron over Kobe
2009-10 LeBron over Durant
2010-11 DERRICK ROSE OVER DWIGHT HOWARD (three best players were James, Howard, CP3) The denial of LeBron here prevented him from winning 5 straight, no one has ever won even 4 straight.
11-12 James over Durant
12-13 James over Durant (this is the bizarre Melo first-place vote year)
13-14 Durant over James ("the real MVP" speech)
14-15 Curry over Harden (two guys had almost the same stats, HUGE blowout win for Curry)
15-16 Curry unanimous over Kawhi -- now, Curry had a top 15 all-time season, but that does not answer the question of why he was suddenly unanimous MVP when others had had similar seasons before:
http://bkref.com/tiny/rzugk and not only NOT been unanimous winners, but had even lost!! with similar stats.
2016-17 WESTBROOK OVER HARDEN -- simply put, Harden had a better year than Westbrook, and Harden's team was better than Westbrook's. This is the triumph of Usage Rate over careful consideration. To make matters worse, the vote was not particularly close (69-22 in first-place votes)
finally
2017-18 Harden over LeBron
The end....for now.
Friday, June 29, 2018
Whether He Stays Or Not, LeBron James' Return to Cleveland Has Been A Stroke of Genius
After the Heat lost to the Spurs in 2014, LeBron figured (correctly) that Dwyane Wade as a player was shot, Chris Bosh wasn't going to get the job done as a reasonable #2 option, and LeBron had no chance to contend for a title in Miami.
Chris Bosh, post-LeBron, would play two years, register a total of 10 WS, and would be forced out of basketball due to health issues.
Dwyane Wade, since the 2014 Finals, has only put up 12.9 WS in 4 seasons and his best WS/48 season has been a .105 effort for Miami. He is now, for lack of a better word, terrible and should, if his name were not Dwyane Wade, be out of the league.
By joining the Cavs, James went to a club whose 3 best returning WS players (on a 33-49 club) were:
Kyrie 6.7
Tristan Thompson 5.7
Varejao 5.4
and no one else above 3 WS/
In 2014-15, James added his 10.4 WS to the mix, and he was able to get the Cavs to trade for Kevin Love.
This gave the Cavs (between LeBron and Love) 19.1 WS they did not have (James 10.4 and Love 8.7). Kyrie played better than he ever had (10.4 WS, up from 6.7) and the Cavs got 8 WS from players they eventually traded for (Mozgov, JR Smith).
Result - the 33 win Cavs become the 53 win Cavs and went to the Finals. Remarkably, in hindsight, the Cavs probably should have won that 2015 Finals series, except Kevin Love was assaulted by Kelly Olynyk in the playoffs and Kyrie Irving was physically shot by the end of Game 1 of the Finals and did not play again after Game 1. Looking at the 2015 and 2016 Finals, it is altogether possible that the Cavs with a healthy Kyrie and a healthy Kevin Love actually win both series (recall that Love had nagging injuries on and off through the 2016 playoffs as well). Perhaps the greatest confirmation of this fact is that the Warriors understood that a healthy James, healthy Kyrie and healthy Love might be too much for them and acquired the #2 player in all of basketball - Kevin Durant.
In any event, it really cannot be disputed that the 2014-16 Cavs were far superior to any team the Heat could have fielded in that time perios, and the 2015-16 Cavs actually defeated the 73-win Warriors.
So, at this point in the evaluation, we have to say that LeBron did pretty well for himself in The Return.
The 2016-17 Cavs lost in 5 to the Warriors, blowing a game in Cleveland they could have won, The 2017-18 Cavaliers were forced into a Kyrie Irving trade they never should have made (taking on a still sub-par physically Isaiah Thomas) and picked up a worthless Dwyane Wade. LeBron still led that team to a 50-32 mark and an Eastern Conference title, only to be swept in the Finals.
I heard a person on the radio the other day saying that the constant pressure on the Cavs to keep LeBron happy has "cost the club the ability to build with young players for the future." As a matter of fact, the Cavs have managed to acquire Rodney Hood and Jordan Clarkson, two younger players who have played at a WS/48 rate in their careers (outside the playoffs) that is perfectly acceptable. Same can be said of Larry Nance, Jr. So, basically the Cavs have three decent younger players and George Hill, plus whatever Colin Sexton brings them (the #8 pick in the draft). They also have a 30 year old Kevin Love who has been an all-star multiple times (certainly Love is not a top 10 or top 12 player, but he is still a low-level all-star when healthy, so, a 30 year old player who is a top 25 player in the league.
The cupboard is not bare for Cleveland. If Sexton is good, they have adequate players at PG and SG, a top-25 PF, and an adequate (albeit overpaid) center in Tristan Thompson. The Cavs are not trotting out multiple 35 year olds like the 2012 Brooklyn Nets or the Barkley/Hakeem/Pippen Rockets.
The Cavs have gone 211-117 (.643) with a title and 4 conference titles during the Return. They have an OK base to be a .500 team in the East, even if they get ZERO when LeBron leaves. The Return has been a grand success for Cleveland Cavaliers fans. More to the point of the title of this item, The Return has been great for LeBron James. He took a chance on turning around Cleveland, kept Dan Gilbert's feet to the luxury tax fire and came out looking good.
Chris Bosh, post-LeBron, would play two years, register a total of 10 WS, and would be forced out of basketball due to health issues.
Dwyane Wade, since the 2014 Finals, has only put up 12.9 WS in 4 seasons and his best WS/48 season has been a .105 effort for Miami. He is now, for lack of a better word, terrible and should, if his name were not Dwyane Wade, be out of the league.
By joining the Cavs, James went to a club whose 3 best returning WS players (on a 33-49 club) were:
Kyrie 6.7
Tristan Thompson 5.7
Varejao 5.4
and no one else above 3 WS/
In 2014-15, James added his 10.4 WS to the mix, and he was able to get the Cavs to trade for Kevin Love.
This gave the Cavs (between LeBron and Love) 19.1 WS they did not have (James 10.4 and Love 8.7). Kyrie played better than he ever had (10.4 WS, up from 6.7) and the Cavs got 8 WS from players they eventually traded for (Mozgov, JR Smith).
Result - the 33 win Cavs become the 53 win Cavs and went to the Finals. Remarkably, in hindsight, the Cavs probably should have won that 2015 Finals series, except Kevin Love was assaulted by Kelly Olynyk in the playoffs and Kyrie Irving was physically shot by the end of Game 1 of the Finals and did not play again after Game 1. Looking at the 2015 and 2016 Finals, it is altogether possible that the Cavs with a healthy Kyrie and a healthy Kevin Love actually win both series (recall that Love had nagging injuries on and off through the 2016 playoffs as well). Perhaps the greatest confirmation of this fact is that the Warriors understood that a healthy James, healthy Kyrie and healthy Love might be too much for them and acquired the #2 player in all of basketball - Kevin Durant.
In any event, it really cannot be disputed that the 2014-16 Cavs were far superior to any team the Heat could have fielded in that time perios, and the 2015-16 Cavs actually defeated the 73-win Warriors.
So, at this point in the evaluation, we have to say that LeBron did pretty well for himself in The Return.
The 2016-17 Cavs lost in 5 to the Warriors, blowing a game in Cleveland they could have won, The 2017-18 Cavaliers were forced into a Kyrie Irving trade they never should have made (taking on a still sub-par physically Isaiah Thomas) and picked up a worthless Dwyane Wade. LeBron still led that team to a 50-32 mark and an Eastern Conference title, only to be swept in the Finals.
I heard a person on the radio the other day saying that the constant pressure on the Cavs to keep LeBron happy has "cost the club the ability to build with young players for the future." As a matter of fact, the Cavs have managed to acquire Rodney Hood and Jordan Clarkson, two younger players who have played at a WS/48 rate in their careers (outside the playoffs) that is perfectly acceptable. Same can be said of Larry Nance, Jr. So, basically the Cavs have three decent younger players and George Hill, plus whatever Colin Sexton brings them (the #8 pick in the draft). They also have a 30 year old Kevin Love who has been an all-star multiple times (certainly Love is not a top 10 or top 12 player, but he is still a low-level all-star when healthy, so, a 30 year old player who is a top 25 player in the league.
The cupboard is not bare for Cleveland. If Sexton is good, they have adequate players at PG and SG, a top-25 PF, and an adequate (albeit overpaid) center in Tristan Thompson. The Cavs are not trotting out multiple 35 year olds like the 2012 Brooklyn Nets or the Barkley/Hakeem/Pippen Rockets.
The Cavs have gone 211-117 (.643) with a title and 4 conference titles during the Return. They have an OK base to be a .500 team in the East, even if they get ZERO when LeBron leaves. The Return has been a grand success for Cleveland Cavaliers fans. More to the point of the title of this item, The Return has been great for LeBron James. He took a chance on turning around Cleveland, kept Dan Gilbert's feet to the luxury tax fire and came out looking good.
Friday, June 22, 2018
Trump Suporters Dating in D.C.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/06/22/trump-millennial-supporters-washington-dc-218833
The article has been read as saying Trump supporters/workers are having a tough time dating in D.C. My general thought after reading the whole article is, "Not really." Most of the people in the article don't really seem to care, and,like any good religion/cult, they have opportunities to hang out together and they take advantage of that. I don't see this article as really reflecting any huge problem or huge internal concern as a general rule.
Now, what are my thoughts outside of this article? Well, I am a moderate Democrat. I despise Trump, but I have some beliefs that are not consistent with the Bernie Sanders wing of the party. But as anyone who reads my Twitter feed (@hoopsmavenhm) knows, I am probably on the 70th percentile for liberal beliefs. As a white guy, that places me among the top 30% of the 38% of white men who voted against Trump, so of white guys who vote, let's assume I am top 13% liberal -- 87% of white guys in the U.S. who vote are probably more conservative than I am.
My belief (again, outside of this article) is that women who work for the Trump Administration will have absolutely no problem dating. First, they can pick from the 62% of the white male dating pool who voted for Trump (plus anyone who did not care enough about politics to vote against Trump).
Second, would I date Tomi Lahren? Yes. Britt McHenry? Yes. Would a young me date a young Ann Coulter? Yes. A young Michelle Malkin? Yes. A young Sarah Palin? Yes. Michele Bachmann - OK, close call, the wild eyes and religious fervor scare me.
So, what I am saying is that I REALLY doubt women who work for Trump are being rejected for dates solely or primarily due to their Trump affiliation.
Now, on the other hand, are there liberal women who will not date guys who are not SUPER liberal? Oh yes. Again, I am a fairly liberal guy. In 1988, working as a law clerk, I was telling a story at lunch about how I went to the bank and the "girl behind the counter gave me an umbrella for opening an account." Outrage follows -- The What? "Girl behind...." Uh, woman!! WOMAN!! NOT a girl!!!! "Well, she was younger than I...." WOMAN! Do not make me turn you in to Human Resources. The two law clerk women (see, lesson learned) did not go to HR, but did report me to the recruiting coordinator who had a partner sit me down and explain to me that to survive the summer I needed to be more sensitive and stop offending people. Again, this was 1988. The two women at issue never spoke to me again for the remainder of the summer.
Now, imagine we have moved forward 30 years and you are a male Trump supporter. The idea that you are actually a Trump supporter itself is probably a "microaggression," even if it is never announced. Now, consider beyond THAT all of the anti-liberal things that Trump has stated and stands for. He literally has admitted that he had sexually assaulted women for many years because he could get away with it! You WORK for him? Recall that two 24 year old women in 1988 literally would not SPEAK to me and wanted me fired for telling a story at an informal lunch calling a 21 year old woman a girl. (I am not kidding about this, this happened). What could the possible reaction be from women of this sort 30 years later when a dating candidate announces "yeah, the Bible says we need to put all Mexican children who are infesting our country in cages." I would suggest the reaction is not a good one.
I would also add that I knew some liberal women in law school who HATED me for not agreeing with 100% of what they said. One such person, at a law school reunion, was chatting with a close friend of mine. He stated, "Yeah, I have been hanging out with [Hoops Maven]." Reply? "Oh, wow, OK. Yeah, moving on."
So, I would estimate that being a female Trump supporter reduces your dating options maybe 2%. I would say being a male Trump supporter reduces your dating options 20-35%
That is just my opinion.
The article has been read as saying Trump supporters/workers are having a tough time dating in D.C. My general thought after reading the whole article is, "Not really." Most of the people in the article don't really seem to care, and,like any good religion/cult, they have opportunities to hang out together and they take advantage of that. I don't see this article as really reflecting any huge problem or huge internal concern as a general rule.
Now, what are my thoughts outside of this article? Well, I am a moderate Democrat. I despise Trump, but I have some beliefs that are not consistent with the Bernie Sanders wing of the party. But as anyone who reads my Twitter feed (@hoopsmavenhm) knows, I am probably on the 70th percentile for liberal beliefs. As a white guy, that places me among the top 30% of the 38% of white men who voted against Trump, so of white guys who vote, let's assume I am top 13% liberal -- 87% of white guys in the U.S. who vote are probably more conservative than I am.
My belief (again, outside of this article) is that women who work for the Trump Administration will have absolutely no problem dating. First, they can pick from the 62% of the white male dating pool who voted for Trump (plus anyone who did not care enough about politics to vote against Trump).
Second, would I date Tomi Lahren? Yes. Britt McHenry? Yes. Would a young me date a young Ann Coulter? Yes. A young Michelle Malkin? Yes. A young Sarah Palin? Yes. Michele Bachmann - OK, close call, the wild eyes and religious fervor scare me.
So, what I am saying is that I REALLY doubt women who work for Trump are being rejected for dates solely or primarily due to their Trump affiliation.
Now, on the other hand, are there liberal women who will not date guys who are not SUPER liberal? Oh yes. Again, I am a fairly liberal guy. In 1988, working as a law clerk, I was telling a story at lunch about how I went to the bank and the "girl behind the counter gave me an umbrella for opening an account." Outrage follows -- The What? "Girl behind...." Uh, woman!! WOMAN!! NOT a girl!!!! "Well, she was younger than I...." WOMAN! Do not make me turn you in to Human Resources. The two law clerk women (see, lesson learned) did not go to HR, but did report me to the recruiting coordinator who had a partner sit me down and explain to me that to survive the summer I needed to be more sensitive and stop offending people. Again, this was 1988. The two women at issue never spoke to me again for the remainder of the summer.
Now, imagine we have moved forward 30 years and you are a male Trump supporter. The idea that you are actually a Trump supporter itself is probably a "microaggression," even if it is never announced. Now, consider beyond THAT all of the anti-liberal things that Trump has stated and stands for. He literally has admitted that he had sexually assaulted women for many years because he could get away with it! You WORK for him? Recall that two 24 year old women in 1988 literally would not SPEAK to me and wanted me fired for telling a story at an informal lunch calling a 21 year old woman a girl. (I am not kidding about this, this happened). What could the possible reaction be from women of this sort 30 years later when a dating candidate announces "yeah, the Bible says we need to put all Mexican children who are infesting our country in cages." I would suggest the reaction is not a good one.
I would also add that I knew some liberal women in law school who HATED me for not agreeing with 100% of what they said. One such person, at a law school reunion, was chatting with a close friend of mine. He stated, "Yeah, I have been hanging out with [Hoops Maven]." Reply? "Oh, wow, OK. Yeah, moving on."
So, I would estimate that being a female Trump supporter reduces your dating options maybe 2%. I would say being a male Trump supporter reduces your dating options 20-35%
That is just my opinion.
Thursday, June 14, 2018
The Top 36 NBA Players of All-Time (as of April 2018)
36. James Harden
35. Steph Curry
34. Steve Nash
33. Gary Payton
32. Patrick Ewing
31. Dwyane Wade
30. Bob Cousy
29. Scottie Pippen
28. John Havlicek
27. Chris Paul
26. John Stockton
25. Rick Barry
24. Elgin Baylor
23. Dirk Nowitzki
22. Kevin Durant
21. Kevin Garnett
20. Charles Barkley
19. Julius Erving
18. Moses Malone
17. Hakeem Olajuwon
16. Bob Pettit
15. David Robinson
14. George Mikan
13. Karl Malone
12. Kobe Bryant
11. Oscar Robertson
10. Jerry West
9. Larry Bird
8. Shaquille O'Neal
7. Bill Russell
6. Magic Johnson
5. Tim Duncan
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Wilt Chamberlain
2. LeBron James
1. Michael Jordan
35. Steph Curry
34. Steve Nash
33. Gary Payton
32. Patrick Ewing
31. Dwyane Wade
30. Bob Cousy
29. Scottie Pippen
28. John Havlicek
27. Chris Paul
26. John Stockton
25. Rick Barry
24. Elgin Baylor
23. Dirk Nowitzki
22. Kevin Durant
21. Kevin Garnett
20. Charles Barkley
19. Julius Erving
18. Moses Malone
17. Hakeem Olajuwon
16. Bob Pettit
15. David Robinson
14. George Mikan
13. Karl Malone
12. Kobe Bryant
11. Oscar Robertson
10. Jerry West
9. Larry Bird
8. Shaquille O'Neal
7. Bill Russell
6. Magic Johnson
5. Tim Duncan
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Wilt Chamberlain
2. LeBron James
1. Michael Jordan
Thursday, May 31, 2018
The 51 Worst Statistical Games of 2017-18
Well, try as I might to get the list down to 50, it appears that we have a 6-way tie for 46th worst Game Score (around Negative 4.8) , so we have to go with 51.
Here you go: http://bkref.com/tiny/Eno78
Congrats to the SUPER overrated...
Kristaps Porzingis for winning "worst Game Score of 2017-18" (pre-NBA Finals Edition)
by posting a ridiculously terrible Negative 8.5. In a home Knicks WIN(!!!) against the Celtics, Porzingis played 23 minutes, was 0-11 including 0-3 from 3-point range, 1 of 2 from the line. He did manage to put up 5 rebounds and 1 assist (to 2 turnovers and 4 fouls). 0 steals, 0 blocks.
Josh Jackson's terrible 22 minute effort in a loss to Houston narrowly lost out to Kristaps (only Negative 8.1), probably because Jackson was 2-2 from the line and only had 3 fouls.
Some other notable efforts:
-- Dennis Smith makes the list while actually making 5 shots and having 5 assists, but that was not enough to offset his 5-17 with 9 turnovers and 6 fouls.
-- Of the bottom 51 performances, only 3 were in the playoffs thus far
-- Trevor Ariza's recent Negative 5.3 (0 points, 0-12 including 0-9 from 3, did have some other positive stats)
-- Paul George against Utah (2-16, 6 turnovers, 5 fouls) for Negative 5.5
-- Tying with PG13, Bojan Bogdanovic (1-9, 0 rebounds, 3 turnovers, 5 fouls).
FOLKS APPEARING ON THE LIST MORE THAN ONCE
Dragan Bender 2x
Josh Jackson 3x
Kyle Kuzma 2x
Frank Ntilikina 2x
Garrett Temple 3x
Those are your Final 4, so, who did the worst in those sucky games?
Bender had the 6th and 44th worst games
Josh Jackson had the 2nd, 30th and 38th worst games
Kuzma had the 7th and 37th worst games
Ntilikina 8th and 20th worst
Temple had the 3rd, 17th and 46th worst games.
On the basis of more terrible games (3 versus 2), I give Temple the win - his average terrible game was the 22nd worst while Jackson's were, on average, the 23rd worst.
Congrats Garrett Temple.
Here you go: http://bkref.com/tiny/Eno78
Congrats to the SUPER overrated...
Kristaps Porzingis for winning "worst Game Score of 2017-18" (pre-NBA Finals Edition)
by posting a ridiculously terrible Negative 8.5. In a home Knicks WIN(!!!) against the Celtics, Porzingis played 23 minutes, was 0-11 including 0-3 from 3-point range, 1 of 2 from the line. He did manage to put up 5 rebounds and 1 assist (to 2 turnovers and 4 fouls). 0 steals, 0 blocks.
Josh Jackson's terrible 22 minute effort in a loss to Houston narrowly lost out to Kristaps (only Negative 8.1), probably because Jackson was 2-2 from the line and only had 3 fouls.
Some other notable efforts:
-- Dennis Smith makes the list while actually making 5 shots and having 5 assists, but that was not enough to offset his 5-17 with 9 turnovers and 6 fouls.
-- Of the bottom 51 performances, only 3 were in the playoffs thus far
-- Trevor Ariza's recent Negative 5.3 (0 points, 0-12 including 0-9 from 3, did have some other positive stats)
-- Paul George against Utah (2-16, 6 turnovers, 5 fouls) for Negative 5.5
-- Tying with PG13, Bojan Bogdanovic (1-9, 0 rebounds, 3 turnovers, 5 fouls).
FOLKS APPEARING ON THE LIST MORE THAN ONCE
Dragan Bender 2x
Josh Jackson 3x
Kyle Kuzma 2x
Frank Ntilikina 2x
Garrett Temple 3x
Those are your Final 4, so, who did the worst in those sucky games?
Bender had the 6th and 44th worst games
Josh Jackson had the 2nd, 30th and 38th worst games
Kuzma had the 7th and 37th worst games
Ntilikina 8th and 20th worst
Temple had the 3rd, 17th and 46th worst games.
On the basis of more terrible games (3 versus 2), I give Temple the win - his average terrible game was the 22nd worst while Jackson's were, on average, the 23rd worst.
Congrats Garrett Temple.
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
How Could Cleveland Possibly Win Against Golden State
The way to bet here is Cleveland to lose in 4 or 5 games. The Warriors have 4 all-star level players including two of the top 7 players in the league. The Cavs have LeBron and.....well, not much else (the concussed Kevin love being their second best player).
So, let's try to imagine a scenario for a Cleveland win.
1) LeBron needs to be the best guy 4 times, and by a lot. I really cannot see the Cavs winning unless BOTH of these things occur at least 4 times: LeBron gets a 35 point triple double every night shooting 50% plus AND Neither Durant nor Curry are particularly good.
LeBron's Finals losses involved the following:
2007 -- the famous picture is the Spurs simply swarming around LeBron with 4 guys. They basically demanded that others beat them, and the others could not do so (second best player Larry Hughes, while hardly a great player, was hurt in the Finals).
2011 - Mavs went zone and Dirk Nowitzki had insanely good Finals games. LeBron did not and deferred to Dwyane Wade - an enormous error.
2014 - Kawhi Leonard played well enough that :LeBron did not enjoy an enormous advantage. Kawhi named Finals MVP.
2015 - Iguodala gave LeBron enough problems and hit enough open shots that he was named Finals MVP (a ridiculous decision, but if the strategy is to try to limit LeBron, the guy who limits LeBron gets the award).
2017 - Durant plays LeBron even and wins the Finals MVP.
This strategy and result is similar to the Celtics' ability to have Bill Russell play Wilt down to below his average for points and rebounds and then the rest of the Celtics would outplay the rest of Wilt's teammates.
James cannot have this happen. He needs to go 35-11-11 and then hope that for 4 games these two guys are just OK.
2) Someone like Jordan Clarkson or Rodney Hood needs to play well. Look, Jordan Clarkson in the playoffs has been SUPER terrible. But here is some food for thought for you.
Klay Thompson regular season, "Game Score" 10 or better - 49 games
Jordan Clarkson -- 42 games.
There is no good reason for Clarkson to be SOOOO wretched as a player. Similarly, Hood has had some decent NBA seasons. He and Clarkson are both .070 or so WS/48 players. Why couldn't they have 15-20 points in 2 games? I mean, I am not expecting Kyrie Irving level stats, but geez, they should not be SOOOOO awful.
3) The Cavs' 2-6 Players Need to play up a little and the Warriors 3-7 Players need to play down a little.
Best WS players in 2017-18 for each team (with NBA overall rank for Win Shares)-
1) James #3 in the league
2) Durant #9
3) Curry #19
4) Love #46
5) Draymond #51
6) Klay #84
7) Green #117
8) David West #138
9) Korver #141
10) Tristan Thompson #209
If #1 above occurs (James badly outplays Durant and Curry) then the rest of the equation isn't that impossible. A good Love could outplay a disappointing Draymond, A good Jeff Green could play the bad version of Klay Thompson even. David West and Korver could offset each other for overall production.
Look at some other possibilities - is Larry Nance definitely worse at this stage of his career versus 400 year old David West?
Do we really think that Kevon Looney and Jordan Bell and Quinn Cook are that great?
Shawn Livingston didn't have much of a year. Is he WAY better right now than George Hill? Not that I have seen of late.
4) Some bad luck for GState -- For example, Iggy has to be out for the series. He absolutely cannot recover and be healthy for any games.
Also, maybe one of the Warriors' better guys can turn an ankle or get a medium severity injury that puts him out 2-3-4 games. If Curry steps wrong on his ankle and is out for Games 2-5, that makes a big difference.
Conclusion
Look, having this all happen require a near miracle. First of all, averaging 35-11-11 is an insane 'ask" of anyone. Then you need both GS guys who are top 7 NBA players to play just "OK," and then you need unexpected help from someone(s) who up until now has sucked, and you need your other guys to play 10% better and their other guys 10% worse, and then you need luck.
Is it doable? Well, in the 1975 NBA Finals the 48-34 Warriors were heavy underdogs to a Washington Bullets team that had won 60 games and eliminated the defending champion Celtics. Rick Barry averaged 29-5-4 and led the Warriors to a sweep of the Bullets, winning games by 6, 1, 8 and 1 points. So, I suppose it could happen.
That is, however, not the way to bet.
So, let's try to imagine a scenario for a Cleveland win.
1) LeBron needs to be the best guy 4 times, and by a lot. I really cannot see the Cavs winning unless BOTH of these things occur at least 4 times: LeBron gets a 35 point triple double every night shooting 50% plus AND Neither Durant nor Curry are particularly good.
LeBron's Finals losses involved the following:
2007 -- the famous picture is the Spurs simply swarming around LeBron with 4 guys. They basically demanded that others beat them, and the others could not do so (second best player Larry Hughes, while hardly a great player, was hurt in the Finals).
2011 - Mavs went zone and Dirk Nowitzki had insanely good Finals games. LeBron did not and deferred to Dwyane Wade - an enormous error.
2014 - Kawhi Leonard played well enough that :LeBron did not enjoy an enormous advantage. Kawhi named Finals MVP.
2015 - Iguodala gave LeBron enough problems and hit enough open shots that he was named Finals MVP (a ridiculous decision, but if the strategy is to try to limit LeBron, the guy who limits LeBron gets the award).
2017 - Durant plays LeBron even and wins the Finals MVP.
This strategy and result is similar to the Celtics' ability to have Bill Russell play Wilt down to below his average for points and rebounds and then the rest of the Celtics would outplay the rest of Wilt's teammates.
James cannot have this happen. He needs to go 35-11-11 and then hope that for 4 games these two guys are just OK.
2) Someone like Jordan Clarkson or Rodney Hood needs to play well. Look, Jordan Clarkson in the playoffs has been SUPER terrible. But here is some food for thought for you.
Klay Thompson regular season, "Game Score" 10 or better - 49 games
Jordan Clarkson -- 42 games.
There is no good reason for Clarkson to be SOOOO wretched as a player. Similarly, Hood has had some decent NBA seasons. He and Clarkson are both .070 or so WS/48 players. Why couldn't they have 15-20 points in 2 games? I mean, I am not expecting Kyrie Irving level stats, but geez, they should not be SOOOOO awful.
3) The Cavs' 2-6 Players Need to play up a little and the Warriors 3-7 Players need to play down a little.
Best WS players in 2017-18 for each team (with NBA overall rank for Win Shares)-
1) James #3 in the league
2) Durant #9
3) Curry #19
4) Love #46
5) Draymond #51
6) Klay #84
7) Green #117
8) David West #138
9) Korver #141
10) Tristan Thompson #209
If #1 above occurs (James badly outplays Durant and Curry) then the rest of the equation isn't that impossible. A good Love could outplay a disappointing Draymond, A good Jeff Green could play the bad version of Klay Thompson even. David West and Korver could offset each other for overall production.
Look at some other possibilities - is Larry Nance definitely worse at this stage of his career versus 400 year old David West?
Do we really think that Kevon Looney and Jordan Bell and Quinn Cook are that great?
Shawn Livingston didn't have much of a year. Is he WAY better right now than George Hill? Not that I have seen of late.
4) Some bad luck for GState -- For example, Iggy has to be out for the series. He absolutely cannot recover and be healthy for any games.
Also, maybe one of the Warriors' better guys can turn an ankle or get a medium severity injury that puts him out 2-3-4 games. If Curry steps wrong on his ankle and is out for Games 2-5, that makes a big difference.
Conclusion
Look, having this all happen require a near miracle. First of all, averaging 35-11-11 is an insane 'ask" of anyone. Then you need both GS guys who are top 7 NBA players to play just "OK," and then you need unexpected help from someone(s) who up until now has sucked, and you need your other guys to play 10% better and their other guys 10% worse, and then you need luck.
Is it doable? Well, in the 1975 NBA Finals the 48-34 Warriors were heavy underdogs to a Washington Bullets team that had won 60 games and eliminated the defending champion Celtics. Rick Barry averaged 29-5-4 and led the Warriors to a sweep of the Bullets, winning games by 6, 1, 8 and 1 points. So, I suppose it could happen.
That is, however, not the way to bet.
Thursday, May 17, 2018
Some National Basketball Association (or ABA) MVP Stats.
There is no basketball on tonight, so I did some work on NBA (or ABA) MVP Awards and top 2, 3, 4 and 5 finishes. I will assume LeBron finishes second in 2017-18. Here goes.
Most Wins
Kareem 6
Bill Russell and Michael Jordan 5
LeBron, Wilt 4
Dr.J 4 (counting ABA also).
Most 2nd places
Bird 4
West 4
Durant 3
James 3
Jordan 3
Most 3rd Places
Magic 4
Oscar, Kobe, LeBron 3
Most 4th places
Kareem 4
Pettit, Kobe, Karl Malone 3
Most 5th Places
West, Kobe, Oscar 3.
Most Top 5 finishes (finish 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5).
Kareem 15
LeBron 13
Kobe and Russell 11
Jordan and Wilt 10
Oscar, Magic, Doc, Karl Malone, Duncan 9
Most Top 4 Finishes
Kareem 13
LeBron 12
Russell 11
Jordan 10
Bird, Wilt, Magic 9
If LeBron finishes 2nd this year, as I believe he will, he will tie Bill Russell for the longest Top 4 run in NBA history (11 years).
Russell starting in 1958
1 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 4 3 4.
James starting in 2008
4 1 1 3 1 1 2 3 3 4 2
Most Top 3 Finishes
Jordan 10
LeBron 10
Russell, Kareem, Magic 9
Bird 8.
Most Top 2 Finishes
Jordan 8 (5+3)
Kareem 7 (6+1)
Russell 7 (5+2)
LeBron 7 (4+3)
Bird 7 (3+4)
Wilt 6 (4+2)
Doc 6 (4+2 includes ABA)
Most Wins
Kareem 6
Bill Russell and Michael Jordan 5
LeBron, Wilt 4
Dr.J 4 (counting ABA also).
Most 2nd places
Bird 4
West 4
Durant 3
James 3
Jordan 3
Most 3rd Places
Magic 4
Oscar, Kobe, LeBron 3
Most 4th places
Kareem 4
Pettit, Kobe, Karl Malone 3
Most 5th Places
West, Kobe, Oscar 3.
Most Top 5 finishes (finish 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5).
Kareem 15
LeBron 13
Kobe and Russell 11
Jordan and Wilt 10
Oscar, Magic, Doc, Karl Malone, Duncan 9
Most Top 4 Finishes
Kareem 13
LeBron 12
Russell 11
Jordan 10
Bird, Wilt, Magic 9
If LeBron finishes 2nd this year, as I believe he will, he will tie Bill Russell for the longest Top 4 run in NBA history (11 years).
Russell starting in 1958
1 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 4 3 4.
James starting in 2008
4 1 1 3 1 1 2 3 3 4 2
Most Top 3 Finishes
Jordan 10
LeBron 10
Russell, Kareem, Magic 9
Bird 8.
Most Top 2 Finishes
Jordan 8 (5+3)
Kareem 7 (6+1)
Russell 7 (5+2)
LeBron 7 (4+3)
Bird 7 (3+4)
Wilt 6 (4+2)
Doc 6 (4+2 includes ABA)
Wednesday, May 09, 2018
Your April 2018 "Hoops Maven Evaluation" #1 Best Player of All-Time Is.............Michael Jordan.
Having sat and considered the issue of whether LeBron James or Michael Jordan is the "better" player for some time, I think it is time to just decide. If you look at the last two Blog entries below, you will see that I have come up with 10 arguments for each guy and against the other. If
you go to @hoopsmavenhm on Twitter and review my tweets from the last few days, you will see how nearly identical the men are in certain categories and how they are the most dominant players in the game, ever.
So why does Michael Jordan come out ahead in April of 2018, just as he did in April of 2015 (when James was 4th, behind Kareem and Wilt). Well, I first have to say that it is a very difficult decision. I would say that it has become sort of a 51-49% debate where some very compelling arguments can be made on each side. I believe the best arguments on behalf of LeBron are that he has played longer, has more All-NBA First-team selections, and is a more versatile player. I believe a very good argument could be made that if you basically picked a lineup and a head coach out of a hat but first had to choose LeBron or Jordan, you'd choose LeBron. He can do more with less.
Two things that really come through as you review the stats of each guy is that they are tremendously dominant in their era, and they are really in a class by themselves. After LeBron picks up his 12th All-NBA First-Team award in a couple weeks, he will have 186.3 Win Shares as a First-Team All-NBA player. Jordan had 186.7 Win Shares as First-Team All-NBA player ("FTAN"). https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.fcgi?id=jLo5V James will have a Win Shares per 48 in that time period (as a FTAN) of around .260. Jordan was .283. Want to get even weirder? Jordan has 725 blocks, LeBron will have 723 blocks.
The two men's playoff careers are within a millimeter of one another. Again, James has played longer, so he has the advantage in counting stats and in gross Win Shares and VORP. Jordan enjoys an edge in playoff WS/48 of .255 to .246. If it is a valid thing to do to divide VORP by games played, James contributes .138 value per playoff game while Jordan is at .127. Virtually any playoff efficiency stats you can find, the leader is either James or Jordan. The two men absolutely DOMINATE any search for a stat that shows great playoff performance. If you look for some combination of stats that show playoff greatness, you will find that of the top 50+ such seasons, generally Jordan and James each has 8-10 and the next best guy has like 4.
I would argue that James and Jordan are virtually identical as playoff performers, with James perhaps statistically better by maybe 1%. So why would Jordan be #1 and James #2?
1) You cannot ignore the #1 Jordan argument, which is that Jordan played in the Finals 6 times and was the best player in the Finals 6 times and won 6 titles. In fact, he was the #1 offensive AND defensive player for his team (and better than anyone on the other team) 6 straight times. If you review ALL of the greatest players of all-time, you cannot say that about Wilt or Kareem or Duncan or Magic or Russell or Shaq or Bird or West or Oscar. Can you say that about LeBron? He was not the best player on the floor in 2007 or 2011 and he was great but a loser in 2014, 2015 and 2017. This is a very unique claim that Michael has as a player. It certainly counts for a lot.
2) On a regular season basis, Jordan was a better and more consistent player than James. Not by a lot, but by some. He basically is a .250 WS/48 player and LeBron is a .240 player. Basically Jordan is 4% better. Their absolute peak season is roughly the same (.322) but if you line up the raw Win Shares you will see that Jordan's Win Shares per season are superior to LeBron's for 11 seasons in a row
Best Year #1 +.9
+1.1
+1.8
+3.5
+3.1
+2.7
+2.5
+2.7
+ 2.6
+1.8
Best Year #11 -- +.3
Then James wins the last 4 seasons by a lot because Jordan has 4 crap seasons.
This is also evident when you search for seasons where guys had a lot of "Very Good" or "Great" games measured by Game Score. Jordan has the 6 best seasons for 22.5 or greater Game Scores http://bkref.com/tiny/ogk4l. He has the 5 best seasons for 30.0 or greater Game Scores http://bkref.com/tiny/VyAAv He had a season where he had 80 (!!!) Game Scores over 15 -- http://bkref.com/tiny/pK3X4 He has 4 of the top 5 of those seasons, and 5 of the top 10.
What this tells you is that Michael was frigging relentless. It is consistent with the talking point that he is an assassin who takes things personally and LeBron is more of an entertainer.
There is certainly nothing wrong with being an entertainer, but it does get reflected in your regular season stats. If I am going to criticize other players (like Shaq) for failing to give 100% full-out effort in the regular season, I have to acknowledge that James had years where he was capable of doing more (as is reflected in his playoff efforts) and he did not do so. In fact, one thing that is proof of this fact is that LeBron this year (15th season, age 33) had 69 Game Scores above 15 (his 4th most) and 51 Game Scores above 22.5 (his most ever). He was capable of that level of play for many years, but his concentration level went up this year.
3) Similar to #2 above, Jordan was a more productive and more relentless defender throughout his career. James is as good of a defender, but he has gone long stretches in his career where his effort on that end of the court did not reach his potential. That is reflected in his 5 all-D awards to Michael's 9. James has been a far better playoff defender in the playoffs (6 seasons of DRtg 101 or less, 3 such regular seasons).
4) Finally, while one could argue that this cuts both ways, Jordan has those two pretty crappy seasons in D.C. He played 5,000 minutes in D.C., roughly 1/8 of his career. He was NOT very good. He put up under 10 WS in 2 seasons combined. He had a WS/48 for the two years of roughly .087. He reduced his WS/48 from .274 for his career to .250.
It was a terrible decision. Jordan's gross raw numbers didn't go up enough to really justify the decline in his per minute numbers. Those two years (again, around 12% of his career) give us a distorted view of how good he was in his 13 seasons as a Bull. He was roughly 13-14% better in the regular season for WS/48 as a Bull versus LeBron for LeBron's career.
Now, could we say the same thing about LeBron's playing when he was 19-20 years old and ramping up as a player? Sure. But it really harms Jordan as a player to review his 41,000 minutes and not at least acknowledge that he was really stupid for playing that last 8,000 minutes and those minutes do not fairly reflect his value as a player and they bring his advanced stats, his shooting stats, and even his scoring stats to a point more unfavorable to LeBron's than they should be.
So, that's it. I should say in closing that this Blog entry perhaps credits Michael too greatly and diminishes LeBron unnecessarily. Certainly the argument could be made that James' teams were benefitted by him saving something for the post-season and that many of Jordan's relentless Game Score seasons resulted in little or no team success in the playoffs. But the point of this entry is to select someone and explain why. Therefore, the result is that Jordan's strengths and James' weaknesses have to be presented and argued in Michael's favor. Michael Jordan is still #1.
#2 Greatest Player, 2018 Edition - LeBron James
#1 Greatest Player, 2018 Edition -- Michael Jordan.
We will come back and evaluate again in 2021.
So why does Michael Jordan come out ahead in April of 2018, just as he did in April of 2015 (when James was 4th, behind Kareem and Wilt). Well, I first have to say that it is a very difficult decision. I would say that it has become sort of a 51-49% debate where some very compelling arguments can be made on each side. I believe the best arguments on behalf of LeBron are that he has played longer, has more All-NBA First-team selections, and is a more versatile player. I believe a very good argument could be made that if you basically picked a lineup and a head coach out of a hat but first had to choose LeBron or Jordan, you'd choose LeBron. He can do more with less.
Two things that really come through as you review the stats of each guy is that they are tremendously dominant in their era, and they are really in a class by themselves. After LeBron picks up his 12th All-NBA First-Team award in a couple weeks, he will have 186.3 Win Shares as a First-Team All-NBA player. Jordan had 186.7 Win Shares as First-Team All-NBA player ("FTAN"). https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.fcgi?id=jLo5V James will have a Win Shares per 48 in that time period (as a FTAN) of around .260. Jordan was .283. Want to get even weirder? Jordan has 725 blocks, LeBron will have 723 blocks.
The two men's playoff careers are within a millimeter of one another. Again, James has played longer, so he has the advantage in counting stats and in gross Win Shares and VORP. Jordan enjoys an edge in playoff WS/48 of .255 to .246. If it is a valid thing to do to divide VORP by games played, James contributes .138 value per playoff game while Jordan is at .127. Virtually any playoff efficiency stats you can find, the leader is either James or Jordan. The two men absolutely DOMINATE any search for a stat that shows great playoff performance. If you look for some combination of stats that show playoff greatness, you will find that of the top 50+ such seasons, generally Jordan and James each has 8-10 and the next best guy has like 4.
I would argue that James and Jordan are virtually identical as playoff performers, with James perhaps statistically better by maybe 1%. So why would Jordan be #1 and James #2?
1) You cannot ignore the #1 Jordan argument, which is that Jordan played in the Finals 6 times and was the best player in the Finals 6 times and won 6 titles. In fact, he was the #1 offensive AND defensive player for his team (and better than anyone on the other team) 6 straight times. If you review ALL of the greatest players of all-time, you cannot say that about Wilt or Kareem or Duncan or Magic or Russell or Shaq or Bird or West or Oscar. Can you say that about LeBron? He was not the best player on the floor in 2007 or 2011 and he was great but a loser in 2014, 2015 and 2017. This is a very unique claim that Michael has as a player. It certainly counts for a lot.
2) On a regular season basis, Jordan was a better and more consistent player than James. Not by a lot, but by some. He basically is a .250 WS/48 player and LeBron is a .240 player. Basically Jordan is 4% better. Their absolute peak season is roughly the same (.322) but if you line up the raw Win Shares you will see that Jordan's Win Shares per season are superior to LeBron's for 11 seasons in a row
Best Year #1 +.9
+1.1
+1.8
+3.5
+3.1
+2.7
+2.5
+2.7
+ 2.6
+1.8
Best Year #11 -- +.3
Then James wins the last 4 seasons by a lot because Jordan has 4 crap seasons.
This is also evident when you search for seasons where guys had a lot of "Very Good" or "Great" games measured by Game Score. Jordan has the 6 best seasons for 22.5 or greater Game Scores http://bkref.com/tiny/ogk4l. He has the 5 best seasons for 30.0 or greater Game Scores http://bkref.com/tiny/VyAAv He had a season where he had 80 (!!!) Game Scores over 15 -- http://bkref.com/tiny/pK3X4 He has 4 of the top 5 of those seasons, and 5 of the top 10.
What this tells you is that Michael was frigging relentless. It is consistent with the talking point that he is an assassin who takes things personally and LeBron is more of an entertainer.
There is certainly nothing wrong with being an entertainer, but it does get reflected in your regular season stats. If I am going to criticize other players (like Shaq) for failing to give 100% full-out effort in the regular season, I have to acknowledge that James had years where he was capable of doing more (as is reflected in his playoff efforts) and he did not do so. In fact, one thing that is proof of this fact is that LeBron this year (15th season, age 33) had 69 Game Scores above 15 (his 4th most) and 51 Game Scores above 22.5 (his most ever). He was capable of that level of play for many years, but his concentration level went up this year.
3) Similar to #2 above, Jordan was a more productive and more relentless defender throughout his career. James is as good of a defender, but he has gone long stretches in his career where his effort on that end of the court did not reach his potential. That is reflected in his 5 all-D awards to Michael's 9. James has been a far better playoff defender in the playoffs (6 seasons of DRtg 101 or less, 3 such regular seasons).
4) Finally, while one could argue that this cuts both ways, Jordan has those two pretty crappy seasons in D.C. He played 5,000 minutes in D.C., roughly 1/8 of his career. He was NOT very good. He put up under 10 WS in 2 seasons combined. He had a WS/48 for the two years of roughly .087. He reduced his WS/48 from .274 for his career to .250.
It was a terrible decision. Jordan's gross raw numbers didn't go up enough to really justify the decline in his per minute numbers. Those two years (again, around 12% of his career) give us a distorted view of how good he was in his 13 seasons as a Bull. He was roughly 13-14% better in the regular season for WS/48 as a Bull versus LeBron for LeBron's career.
Now, could we say the same thing about LeBron's playing when he was 19-20 years old and ramping up as a player? Sure. But it really harms Jordan as a player to review his 41,000 minutes and not at least acknowledge that he was really stupid for playing that last 8,000 minutes and those minutes do not fairly reflect his value as a player and they bring his advanced stats, his shooting stats, and even his scoring stats to a point more unfavorable to LeBron's than they should be.
So, that's it. I should say in closing that this Blog entry perhaps credits Michael too greatly and diminishes LeBron unnecessarily. Certainly the argument could be made that James' teams were benefitted by him saving something for the post-season and that many of Jordan's relentless Game Score seasons resulted in little or no team success in the playoffs. But the point of this entry is to select someone and explain why. Therefore, the result is that Jordan's strengths and James' weaknesses have to be presented and argued in Michael's favor. Michael Jordan is still #1.
#2 Greatest Player, 2018 Edition - LeBron James
#1 Greatest Player, 2018 Edition -- Michael Jordan.
We will come back and evaluate again in 2021.
Tuesday, May 08, 2018
"LeBron James is Better Than Michael Jordan" Talking Points
As stated below, I have 48 hours to make a final decision, and I figured that as a public service I would provide worthwhile "Talking Points" so fans of either guy can argue from them. Here are the pro-LeBron talking points to use:
1) LeBron has played longer and been more productive over a longer period of time. Look, do we say Gale Sayers was a better player than Walter Payton? No. Is it called the Johan Santana Award? No. It is called the Cy Young Award b/c he had 511 wins. We establish true greatness by consistent longevity. James has played longer, he has achieved more wins (55 more than Jordan in the regular season, 33 more in the playoffs).
Are we going to say that a guy who was banned from the league for gam.....I mean, who just flat out left the game to play baseball, is entitled to #1 position when James has, literally, more wins, more Win Shares, more playoff Win Shares, a higher VORP, a higher playoff VORP and more finals appearances? Should we move Curry and Mikan to #1? Is Bob McAdoo a top 15 player?
Let's get real here, Jordan was good for 12 years, James has been good for 14 years, and he is still the #1 player in the game.
Jordan has 10X First-team all-NBA. LeBron come June will have 12X. All other things being equal, that is a 20% deficit Jordan has to recover from to be deemed "better."
2) James has won titles, or reached the Finals, with Mike Brown, Eric Spoelstra, David Blatt and Ty Lue coaching him. Jordan never won even a conference title without Phil Jackson coaching him.
Without Big Chief Triangle at the helm, Jordan went - lost first round, lost first round, lost first round, lost second round, lost conference finals, [played for Phil], no playoffs, no playoffs. Imagine if LeBron James had that sort of record with Mike Brown or David Blatt! He couldn't show his face in public.
Phil, sans Jordan, went on to win 5 more titles. Jordan w/o Phil? Zero. With LeBron it is the opposite - his coaches without him have enjoyed virtually no success while LeBron continues to enjoy great success. This year, for example, saw the emergence of Larry Drew as a suddenly-great NBA interim coach.
Jordan has 6 titles, but are they really........Phil's titles?
3) James is a bigger man and can guard all 5 positions. Jordan, for as great as he is, could never guard power forwards and centers. James can guard 1-5 and do so at a level which allows his team to play whatever lineup is working at the time. Jordan could not do that.
4) James is a better rebounder. This is particularly true when you consider only the playoffs. In the playoffs, LeBron has had 8 or more rebounds in a game 148 times (4th best all-time). Jordan? 57 games, good for a tie for 40th. So, James has 30 more 8+ rebound playoff games than Hakeem Olajuwon, while Jordan has 4 more 8+ playoff rebound games than Jason Kidd.
5) James is both a facilitator and a finisher. Again, look at the playoffs. 8+ assist games in the playoffs - James has 86 games, 3rd best behind Stockton and Magic. Jordan has 45, tied for 12th, 4 fewer than Mark Jackson.
James can both start your offense and score. Jordan is primarily a scorer.
6) James did not need Scottie Pippen to win. Jordan won zero titles without Scottie Pippen. James has played with excellent players (Wade, Bosh, Love, Kyrie) but in the 1-2 years before and after they played with LeBron, these players achieved no great level of success. James comes in, wins a title, these guys get titles.
The first year that Jordan left the Bulls, Pippen finished 3rd in MVP balloting and the Bulls won 55 games. The previous year with Jordan? 57 wins.
7) James was a more proficient 3-point shooter. Despite taking 2 1/2 times as many as Jordan per game, James has shot a higher percentage. Jordan had 8 seasons where he shot under 30% from 3. James had 1 such season.
8) James is the more versatile player, and by a lot. http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2015/07/nbas-greatest-all-around-players-james.html
If you want someone who will consistently fill the stat sheet for your team in every single category, you want James. As the link demonstrates, it is not a particularly close call.
9) James defeated in the Finals teams that were far superior to any Chicago ever faced in the Finals. Tim Duncan has one Finals loss - to Finals MVP James, 2013. Golden State was 73-9, best record ever, they lost to Finals MVP James in 2016. The Thunder had THREE NBA MVPs on their roster in 2012. Lost in 5 games to Finals MVP James.
If we are measuring the "best player" are we not evaluating the best teams he ever defeated? I mean, Jordan played the great Celtics teams of the mid-80s -- always lost. Played the great Pistons teams of the late 80s - always lost. Eventually those teams aged out and someone had to replace them. Congrats, Larry Bird by 1991 could barely walk without pain, but congrats on beating him. Isiah Thomas left Indiana in 1981 - congrats on finally defeating him in 1991. Bird beat Magic, Magic beat Bird, Wilt beat Russell, Russell beat Wilt. Michael really just hit a soft spot. Are we to believe the 1996 Sonics were a super team?
10) Jordan, when saddled with poor teammates, never made the Finals. Look at the 2007 Cavaliers. Actually, if you are a fan of good team basketball, you probably want to avert your eyes. The 3rd best playoff Cav was Daniel "Boobie" Gibson. James was 3rd in the playoffs that year in Box Plus-Minus. Gibson was 26th, Verajoa was 44th, Ilgauskas was 61st. No other Cav even had a positive BPM.
They reached the Finals.
And look at this year - James started the year hoping to be powered by Isaiah Thomas, Dwyane Wade and Derrick Rose, helped out by Jae Crowder. Those 4 men combined for a Negative VORP. Negative. That means that had you chosen 4 random "replacement players" (basically 4 Gerald Hendersons) they would have contributed more than these 4 guys. The Cavs then got rid of those guys and acquired players who were not starring on Utah, the Lakers and Sacramento. That crew is in the Eastern Conference Finals.
In the 2015 Finals, Cleveland took 2 games from Golden State. Cleveland was coached by David Blatt and after Kyrie Irving was lost in Game 1 (a Cleveland loss), the ##2 and 3 performers for Cleveland the rest of the way were Timofey Mozgov and Tristan Thompson. Delly played 30+ minutes per game. He shot 28% from the field and 23% from 3. His net rating was an insanely bad negative 32. Again, this team won two games.
James has always had the ability to do more with less than any player ever. That is a skill set Jordan cannot match, and that is evident from Jordan's lack of success with that level of player as a teammate.
1) LeBron has played longer and been more productive over a longer period of time. Look, do we say Gale Sayers was a better player than Walter Payton? No. Is it called the Johan Santana Award? No. It is called the Cy Young Award b/c he had 511 wins. We establish true greatness by consistent longevity. James has played longer, he has achieved more wins (55 more than Jordan in the regular season, 33 more in the playoffs).
Are we going to say that a guy who was banned from the league for gam.....I mean, who just flat out left the game to play baseball, is entitled to #1 position when James has, literally, more wins, more Win Shares, more playoff Win Shares, a higher VORP, a higher playoff VORP and more finals appearances? Should we move Curry and Mikan to #1? Is Bob McAdoo a top 15 player?
Let's get real here, Jordan was good for 12 years, James has been good for 14 years, and he is still the #1 player in the game.
Jordan has 10X First-team all-NBA. LeBron come June will have 12X. All other things being equal, that is a 20% deficit Jordan has to recover from to be deemed "better."
2) James has won titles, or reached the Finals, with Mike Brown, Eric Spoelstra, David Blatt and Ty Lue coaching him. Jordan never won even a conference title without Phil Jackson coaching him.
Without Big Chief Triangle at the helm, Jordan went - lost first round, lost first round, lost first round, lost second round, lost conference finals, [played for Phil], no playoffs, no playoffs. Imagine if LeBron James had that sort of record with Mike Brown or David Blatt! He couldn't show his face in public.
Phil, sans Jordan, went on to win 5 more titles. Jordan w/o Phil? Zero. With LeBron it is the opposite - his coaches without him have enjoyed virtually no success while LeBron continues to enjoy great success. This year, for example, saw the emergence of Larry Drew as a suddenly-great NBA interim coach.
Jordan has 6 titles, but are they really........Phil's titles?
3) James is a bigger man and can guard all 5 positions. Jordan, for as great as he is, could never guard power forwards and centers. James can guard 1-5 and do so at a level which allows his team to play whatever lineup is working at the time. Jordan could not do that.
4) James is a better rebounder. This is particularly true when you consider only the playoffs. In the playoffs, LeBron has had 8 or more rebounds in a game 148 times (4th best all-time). Jordan? 57 games, good for a tie for 40th. So, James has 30 more 8+ rebound playoff games than Hakeem Olajuwon, while Jordan has 4 more 8+ playoff rebound games than Jason Kidd.
5) James is both a facilitator and a finisher. Again, look at the playoffs. 8+ assist games in the playoffs - James has 86 games, 3rd best behind Stockton and Magic. Jordan has 45, tied for 12th, 4 fewer than Mark Jackson.
James can both start your offense and score. Jordan is primarily a scorer.
6) James did not need Scottie Pippen to win. Jordan won zero titles without Scottie Pippen. James has played with excellent players (Wade, Bosh, Love, Kyrie) but in the 1-2 years before and after they played with LeBron, these players achieved no great level of success. James comes in, wins a title, these guys get titles.
The first year that Jordan left the Bulls, Pippen finished 3rd in MVP balloting and the Bulls won 55 games. The previous year with Jordan? 57 wins.
7) James was a more proficient 3-point shooter. Despite taking 2 1/2 times as many as Jordan per game, James has shot a higher percentage. Jordan had 8 seasons where he shot under 30% from 3. James had 1 such season.
8) James is the more versatile player, and by a lot. http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2015/07/nbas-greatest-all-around-players-james.html
If you want someone who will consistently fill the stat sheet for your team in every single category, you want James. As the link demonstrates, it is not a particularly close call.
9) James defeated in the Finals teams that were far superior to any Chicago ever faced in the Finals. Tim Duncan has one Finals loss - to Finals MVP James, 2013. Golden State was 73-9, best record ever, they lost to Finals MVP James in 2016. The Thunder had THREE NBA MVPs on their roster in 2012. Lost in 5 games to Finals MVP James.
If we are measuring the "best player" are we not evaluating the best teams he ever defeated? I mean, Jordan played the great Celtics teams of the mid-80s -- always lost. Played the great Pistons teams of the late 80s - always lost. Eventually those teams aged out and someone had to replace them. Congrats, Larry Bird by 1991 could barely walk without pain, but congrats on beating him. Isiah Thomas left Indiana in 1981 - congrats on finally defeating him in 1991. Bird beat Magic, Magic beat Bird, Wilt beat Russell, Russell beat Wilt. Michael really just hit a soft spot. Are we to believe the 1996 Sonics were a super team?
10) Jordan, when saddled with poor teammates, never made the Finals. Look at the 2007 Cavaliers. Actually, if you are a fan of good team basketball, you probably want to avert your eyes. The 3rd best playoff Cav was Daniel "Boobie" Gibson. James was 3rd in the playoffs that year in Box Plus-Minus. Gibson was 26th, Verajoa was 44th, Ilgauskas was 61st. No other Cav even had a positive BPM.
They reached the Finals.
And look at this year - James started the year hoping to be powered by Isaiah Thomas, Dwyane Wade and Derrick Rose, helped out by Jae Crowder. Those 4 men combined for a Negative VORP. Negative. That means that had you chosen 4 random "replacement players" (basically 4 Gerald Hendersons) they would have contributed more than these 4 guys. The Cavs then got rid of those guys and acquired players who were not starring on Utah, the Lakers and Sacramento. That crew is in the Eastern Conference Finals.
In the 2015 Finals, Cleveland took 2 games from Golden State. Cleveland was coached by David Blatt and after Kyrie Irving was lost in Game 1 (a Cleveland loss), the ##2 and 3 performers for Cleveland the rest of the way were Timofey Mozgov and Tristan Thompson. Delly played 30+ minutes per game. He shot 28% from the field and 23% from 3. His net rating was an insanely bad negative 32. Again, this team won two games.
James has always had the ability to do more with less than any player ever. That is a skill set Jordan cannot match, and that is evident from Jordan's lack of success with that level of player as a teammate.
"Michael Jordan Is Better Than LeBron James" Talking Points
As I make my final decision, which will come on or before May 10, I am reading a LOT of hate on LeBron James and on Michael Jordan on Twitter regarding who is the better guy and how the other guy just completely sucks.
Look, these guys are my ##1 and 2 players of all-time. Obviously neither man "sucks" as a basketball player. And it obviously is a very close race between the two for who is the "best player of all-time". With that said, let me provide Michael fans with 10 legitimate "Talking Points" for their argument, and I will (in a separate post) also provide 10 "Talking Points" for LeBron fans.
First, good ways to argue Michael Jordan is better:
1) He has 6 titles. LeBron has 3. If the point of playing the game is to win (which, it is a competitive sport, so shouldn't that be the entire point of the exercise?) then, if we assume all other things are equal, shouldn't the easiest tiebreaker be who won more? LeBron fans have to establish NOT that he is as good as Jordan, but, rather, that he is so substantially better that we can ignore this discrepancy.
Pretty simple argument.
2) Jordan has been the more consistent regular season player, by quite a bit. If you review the total Win Shares per season for each man, you will see that a typical Jordan season is around 1-1.5 WS better than a typical LeBron season. On a per 48 basis, James is about a 5% worse player in the regular season.
3) Jordan was recognized as first-team all-defense 9X to LeBron's 5. Jordan won Defensive Player of the Year, LeBron was only a runner up.
4) Jordan was a better and more consistent scorer. Jordan led the league in PPG 10X versus LeBron's 1X.
5) Jordan, while a high Usage player, played in a system where the ball stuck less in his hands. James' teams have tended to revert to a "23 Stand" halfcourt offense where LeBron holds the ball for 23 seconds and tries to do something at the way end of the clock. Jordan was not only a better scorer, but his game was prettier.
6) Jordan didn't constantly run around trying to find better teammates to help him win. He stayed in Chicago, gutted it out, and eventually won his 6 titles.
7) Jordan was a better free throw shooter. He shot .835 to James' .739. In an important situation, sending a guy to the line who shoots 10% higher is a great advantage,
8) Jordan was a more single-minded player. James is more of an entertainer, and he has a tendency during the regular season to play just well enough to win. Jordan played with a level of hatred and intensity 82 games a year that no one has ever matched. Jordan took a regular season loss as a personal affront. James appears to be the more well-adjusted person (and has certainly been a more vocal advocate for social justice, for example), but that also makes him a touch easier to play against in a meaningless February game in Sacramento than was Jordan.
9) Jordan was always, 100% of the time, the Finals MVP in any series he played in. While James has three, and one could argue he probably deserved 4 for the losing 2015 Finals effort, there is no denying that Jordan, every time he had a chance to win, was the best player and was recognized as such. In this regard, the 2007 and 2011 Finals are a black mark against James, who really did not play particularly great in either series.
10) Jordan left the game, sat 1.75 years, and when he returned, within 18 months he made his team 30 wins better. Jordan and James both have VORP seasons around 12 for VORP. Supposedly, if you have a 12 VORP, that means 32.4 wins for your team (VORP X 2.7 = wins you contribute). Jordan LITERALLY demonstrated that without him the Bulls in 1995 were headed for a .500 season and with him 2 years later they were 72-10. That is a 31 win improvement. No other player has conducted an experiment of that sort. It is an unbelievable tribute to Jordan.
There, those are 10 Talking Points for you.
Look, these guys are my ##1 and 2 players of all-time. Obviously neither man "sucks" as a basketball player. And it obviously is a very close race between the two for who is the "best player of all-time". With that said, let me provide Michael fans with 10 legitimate "Talking Points" for their argument, and I will (in a separate post) also provide 10 "Talking Points" for LeBron fans.
First, good ways to argue Michael Jordan is better:
1) He has 6 titles. LeBron has 3. If the point of playing the game is to win (which, it is a competitive sport, so shouldn't that be the entire point of the exercise?) then, if we assume all other things are equal, shouldn't the easiest tiebreaker be who won more? LeBron fans have to establish NOT that he is as good as Jordan, but, rather, that he is so substantially better that we can ignore this discrepancy.
Pretty simple argument.
2) Jordan has been the more consistent regular season player, by quite a bit. If you review the total Win Shares per season for each man, you will see that a typical Jordan season is around 1-1.5 WS better than a typical LeBron season. On a per 48 basis, James is about a 5% worse player in the regular season.
3) Jordan was recognized as first-team all-defense 9X to LeBron's 5. Jordan won Defensive Player of the Year, LeBron was only a runner up.
4) Jordan was a better and more consistent scorer. Jordan led the league in PPG 10X versus LeBron's 1X.
5) Jordan, while a high Usage player, played in a system where the ball stuck less in his hands. James' teams have tended to revert to a "23 Stand" halfcourt offense where LeBron holds the ball for 23 seconds and tries to do something at the way end of the clock. Jordan was not only a better scorer, but his game was prettier.
6) Jordan didn't constantly run around trying to find better teammates to help him win. He stayed in Chicago, gutted it out, and eventually won his 6 titles.
7) Jordan was a better free throw shooter. He shot .835 to James' .739. In an important situation, sending a guy to the line who shoots 10% higher is a great advantage,
8) Jordan was a more single-minded player. James is more of an entertainer, and he has a tendency during the regular season to play just well enough to win. Jordan played with a level of hatred and intensity 82 games a year that no one has ever matched. Jordan took a regular season loss as a personal affront. James appears to be the more well-adjusted person (and has certainly been a more vocal advocate for social justice, for example), but that also makes him a touch easier to play against in a meaningless February game in Sacramento than was Jordan.
9) Jordan was always, 100% of the time, the Finals MVP in any series he played in. While James has three, and one could argue he probably deserved 4 for the losing 2015 Finals effort, there is no denying that Jordan, every time he had a chance to win, was the best player and was recognized as such. In this regard, the 2007 and 2011 Finals are a black mark against James, who really did not play particularly great in either series.
10) Jordan left the game, sat 1.75 years, and when he returned, within 18 months he made his team 30 wins better. Jordan and James both have VORP seasons around 12 for VORP. Supposedly, if you have a 12 VORP, that means 32.4 wins for your team (VORP X 2.7 = wins you contribute). Jordan LITERALLY demonstrated that without him the Bulls in 1995 were headed for a .500 season and with him 2 years later they were 72-10. That is a 31 win improvement. No other player has conducted an experiment of that sort. It is an unbelievable tribute to Jordan.
There, those are 10 Talking Points for you.
Friday, May 04, 2018
Well, It Is Down to Between LeBron and Michael -- Here is the top 36 so far
36. James Harden (new to the list)
35. Stephon Curry (new to the list)
34. Steve Nash (-4 from 2015)
33. Gary Payton (+2)
32. Patrick Ewing (+1)
31. Dwyane Wade (same as 2015)
30. Bob Cousy (new to list)
29. Scottie Pippen (+7 from 2015)
28. John Havlicek (+4)
27. Chris Paul (-1)
26. John Stockton (-2)
25. Rick Barry (+2)
24. Elgin Baylor (-4)
23. Dirk Nowitzki (same as 2015)
22. Kevin Durant (+3)
21. Kevin Garnett (+1)
20. Charles Barkley (+1)
19. Julius Erving (same as 2015)
18. Moses Malone (-2)
17. Bob Pettit (same as 2015)
16. Hakeem Olajuwon (-1)
15. David Robinson (-1)
14. George Mikan (-5)
13. Karl Malone (-6)
12. Kobe Bryant (+6)
11. Oscar Robertson (+1)
10. Jerry West (+1)
9. Larry Bird (+4)
8. Shaquille O'Neal (+1)
7. Bill Russell (+1)
6. Magic Johnson (same as 2015)
5. Tim Duncan (same as 2015)
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (-1)
3. Wilt Chamberlain (-1)
Either Michael or LeBron
35. Stephon Curry (new to the list)
34. Steve Nash (-4 from 2015)
33. Gary Payton (+2)
32. Patrick Ewing (+1)
31. Dwyane Wade (same as 2015)
30. Bob Cousy (new to list)
29. Scottie Pippen (+7 from 2015)
28. John Havlicek (+4)
27. Chris Paul (-1)
26. John Stockton (-2)
25. Rick Barry (+2)
24. Elgin Baylor (-4)
23. Dirk Nowitzki (same as 2015)
22. Kevin Durant (+3)
21. Kevin Garnett (+1)
20. Charles Barkley (+1)
19. Julius Erving (same as 2015)
18. Moses Malone (-2)
17. Bob Pettit (same as 2015)
16. Hakeem Olajuwon (-1)
15. David Robinson (-1)
14. George Mikan (-5)
13. Karl Malone (-6)
12. Kobe Bryant (+6)
11. Oscar Robertson (+1)
10. Jerry West (+1)
9. Larry Bird (+4)
8. Shaquille O'Neal (+1)
7. Bill Russell (+1)
6. Magic Johnson (same as 2015)
5. Tim Duncan (same as 2015)
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (-1)
3. Wilt Chamberlain (-1)
Either Michael or LeBron
Greatest NBA Players -- Kareem is #4, Wilt is #3
Well, it is official, LeBron James has moved up my list from #4 to top 2.
It will either be LeBron James or Michael Jordan as #1 overall. And I still have not decided (I have a self-imposed deadline of 6 days).
I am not going to re-do all of my hard work from 2015 here. So, go to these links to review the greatness of Wilt and Kareem and most of the reasons I give Wilt the slight edge. https://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-second-greatest-nba-player-of-all.html
And
https://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-3rd-greatest-nba-player-of-all-time.html
So:
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar #4
Wilt Chamberlain #3.
Here is a little taste of why Kareem is #4. Kareem lost Oscar in 1974. Kareem's years without Oscar or Magic (recall this is in Kareem's physical prime, ages 27-31):
1974-75 Bucks - 42-40, no playoffs
1975-76 Lakers - 41-41, no playoffs
1976-77 Lakers - 53-29, swept by Walton in playoffs
1977-78 Lakers - 45-37, lost to Jack Sikma in the playoffs
1978-79 Lakers - 47-35, lost to Sikma again.
Then Magic came. I am sorry, but if you are the equal of Wilt and LeBron and Michael, then you are not, in your physical prime, struggling so mightily for 5 years. You just aren't. This indicates to me that out of these 4 guys, Kareem was the least consistently dominant from a winning standpoint. When he got Magic, you then combined the ##4 and 6 players of all-time into one team and added a number of other very good players in supporting roles (Nixon, Scott, Wilkes, Worthy, Thompson, McAdoo, for example). That led to titles in 1980, 82, 85, 87 and 88.
It will either be LeBron James or Michael Jordan as #1 overall. And I still have not decided (I have a self-imposed deadline of 6 days).
I am not going to re-do all of my hard work from 2015 here. So, go to these links to review the greatness of Wilt and Kareem and most of the reasons I give Wilt the slight edge. https://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-second-greatest-nba-player-of-all.html
And
https://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-3rd-greatest-nba-player-of-all-time.html
So:
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar #4
Wilt Chamberlain #3.
Here is a little taste of why Kareem is #4. Kareem lost Oscar in 1974. Kareem's years without Oscar or Magic (recall this is in Kareem's physical prime, ages 27-31):
1974-75 Bucks - 42-40, no playoffs
1975-76 Lakers - 41-41, no playoffs
1976-77 Lakers - 53-29, swept by Walton in playoffs
1977-78 Lakers - 45-37, lost to Jack Sikma in the playoffs
1978-79 Lakers - 47-35, lost to Sikma again.
Then Magic came. I am sorry, but if you are the equal of Wilt and LeBron and Michael, then you are not, in your physical prime, struggling so mightily for 5 years. You just aren't. This indicates to me that out of these 4 guys, Kareem was the least consistently dominant from a winning standpoint. When he got Magic, you then combined the ##4 and 6 players of all-time into one team and added a number of other very good players in supporting roles (Nixon, Scott, Wilkes, Worthy, Thompson, McAdoo, for example). That led to titles in 1980, 82, 85, 87 and 88.
Thursday, May 03, 2018
Why Kareem, Wilt, Michael and LeBron, In Some Order, Are the Top 4 Players Ever
Before we get into ranking them, it just needs to be said again. These are the 4 best guys, and I don't recognize there being any good argument that they are not the best 4 guys.
1) If you look at Most Win Share Seasons over 13, all the way up to 20+, it goes Wilt, Michael, Kareem, James. At times, The Mailman or Oscar gets in there, and Mikan shows up at the highest level (3 seasons over 20 WS). But it is always these guys.
2) basketball-reference.com has "Most Times Leading" https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/most_times_leading.html and "Most Times top 3" https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/most_times_top_3.html for all league-wide stats.
Reading that will lead you to see these 4 guys in the top 4 spots in field goals, PER, Win Shares, and Win Shares per 48. Wilt doesn't have sufficient box scores inputted into the computer, but for Box Plus-Minus and VORP it is LeBron Kareem Jordan or LeBron Jordan Kareem. If you look at the Top 3 page, even raw counting stats like points demonstrate my point.
First-Team All-NBA - Wilt 7, Jordan 10, Kareem 10, LeBron has 11 and in a couple weeks he will have 12.
MVP Wins - Kareem 6, Jordan 5, Wilt 4, LeBron 4.
Finals MVP - Kareem 2, Jordan 6, Wilt 1 (won in 1967, there was no Finals MVP awarded), LeBron 3.
MVP Award Shares (which measures how much of the vote you got in your career) -- Jordan/James/Kareem are 1-2-3. Wilt is #11, but you have to account for the fact that he won 4X and finished top 2 or 3 in years when he lost to Russell, Oscar and Kareem.
Career points - these guys go 1-3-5-7 and 7 is still playing.
Career Rebounds - Wilt and Kareem are 1 and 4
Career points per game -- 1, 2, 4 and 15 (Kareem played like 20 years, he couldn't maintain his scoring at the end).
PER - ## 1, 2, 5, 11
VORP 1, 2, 7 - Wilt has no VORP and Kareem is shorted 4 years of VORP. If you assume Kareem would get those 3-4 years back, it would go 1-2-3 for VORP, probably Kareem, LeBron, Michael.
Points+Rebounds+Assists -- They go 1-2-6, 12 (Jordan is 12).
It is difficult to rank these 4, but it is certainly not difficult to name these 4. They should be everyone's top 4.
1) If you look at Most Win Share Seasons over 13, all the way up to 20+, it goes Wilt, Michael, Kareem, James. At times, The Mailman or Oscar gets in there, and Mikan shows up at the highest level (3 seasons over 20 WS). But it is always these guys.
2) basketball-reference.com has "Most Times Leading" https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/most_times_leading.html and "Most Times top 3" https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/most_times_top_3.html for all league-wide stats.
Reading that will lead you to see these 4 guys in the top 4 spots in field goals, PER, Win Shares, and Win Shares per 48. Wilt doesn't have sufficient box scores inputted into the computer, but for Box Plus-Minus and VORP it is LeBron Kareem Jordan or LeBron Jordan Kareem. If you look at the Top 3 page, even raw counting stats like points demonstrate my point.
First-Team All-NBA - Wilt 7, Jordan 10, Kareem 10, LeBron has 11 and in a couple weeks he will have 12.
MVP Wins - Kareem 6, Jordan 5, Wilt 4, LeBron 4.
Finals MVP - Kareem 2, Jordan 6, Wilt 1 (won in 1967, there was no Finals MVP awarded), LeBron 3.
MVP Award Shares (which measures how much of the vote you got in your career) -- Jordan/James/Kareem are 1-2-3. Wilt is #11, but you have to account for the fact that he won 4X and finished top 2 or 3 in years when he lost to Russell, Oscar and Kareem.
Career points - these guys go 1-3-5-7 and 7 is still playing.
Career Rebounds - Wilt and Kareem are 1 and 4
Career points per game -- 1, 2, 4 and 15 (Kareem played like 20 years, he couldn't maintain his scoring at the end).
PER - ## 1, 2, 5, 11
VORP 1, 2, 7 - Wilt has no VORP and Kareem is shorted 4 years of VORP. If you assume Kareem would get those 3-4 years back, it would go 1-2-3 for VORP, probably Kareem, LeBron, Michael.
Points+Rebounds+Assists -- They go 1-2-6, 12 (Jordan is 12).
It is difficult to rank these 4, but it is certainly not difficult to name these 4. They should be everyone's top 4.
Monday, April 30, 2018
##6 and 5 -- Magic Johnson and Tim Duncan
When you get up here to the Top 6, you are working in rarified air. My top 6 guys (Abdul-Jabbar, Chamberlain, Duncan, James, Johnson, Jordan) have
23 MVPs (average of almost 4)
18 Finals MVPs (average of 3)
58 first-team all-NBA's (average of almost 10)
They rank 1-2-3-5-9 and 11 in MVP Award Shares -- https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/nba_mvp_shares.html
They are the top 6 all-time in playoff Win Shares -- https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_career_p.html yet despite huge minutes also rank 1-6-8-11 and 14 in WS/48 for the playoffs.
They rank 1-2-3-5-10-12 in most Win Shares as a First-Team All-NBA player. http://bkref.com/tiny/5a8Og
OK, so enough of that. These are the best 6 guys.
#6 Magic Johnson -- Magic Johnson had 155.8 career WS, MILES behind anyone else in the top 6. Every other member of the top 6 had over 200 Win Shares. They are ##1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 all-time. Magic is #24. We obviously know the reason for this was Magic's tragic AIDS diagnosis. But, whatever is the case, it is hard to move him above these guys when every one of them has him by 50+ Win Shares. That is like 7 extra seasons of low-level all-star ball or 3 seasons of MVP-level ball.
Let's examine Magic's case for moving up -- well, was he more productive on a per minute basis? No. Of the 6 guys, he only has a WS/48 better than Duncan. So, how about VORP (sometimes VORP more accurately measures high production players). No, he is the worst of the group for whom VORP can be calculated. (Wilt has no VORP). How about we just count up 10 WS seasons -- OK, Magic had 11, great. That is the same as Jordan, but worse than Duncan (12), Wilt (13), LeBron (14) and Kareem (16). Advanced stats are not Magic's friend. You want some support for the old guys' "Magic is a pale imitation of Oscar" storyline, line up Oscar's WS and Magic's per season. Oscar wins all 13 years. All 13. Magic wins none.
In NBA/ABA history, there have been 58 seasons where a guy had over 17 Win Shares. Magic had no such seasons. Zero. Magic's best season was the 68th best season of all-time. Alex Groza has two seasons higher on the list. Bob McAdoo has one. More to the point, the 5 guys I have ranked above Magic have 27 such seasons.
So, all of these advanced stats do not favor Magic moving out of 6th. So what does he have to hang his hat on? He has 3 MVPs, 3 Finals MVPs, 2nd in career assist, 5 titles, 9 Finals, his offensive rating is 121, which is 3rd best all-time behind Chris Paul and Reggie Miller. He has 9X First-team All-NBA wins. From 1983-91, Magic was regarded as top 3 in MVP balloting 8 times. So, there is a lot to recommend about Magic.
But, in my opinion, he has to stop here for two reasons other than Advanced Stats: 1) his career was cut short; whether that be fair or not or "his own fault" or not, it is true. The 5 guys in front of him played longer and were more productive over the long haul; and 2) Every player above Magic on my list was regarded at some point in his career as a "plus" defender. Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, LeBron, Duncan, all feared defenders. When Magic came into the league, the old guys who had watched basketball said, "My lord will they have to hide him on defense." By 1988, the Pistons had decided that they would play a three-guard offense and go to whomever Magic was guarding. This is a statement made by the Pistons' actual players. Imagine saying this about any of those five other guys. Duncan, Kareem and Wilt are top 5 in career Defensive Win Shares. LeBron and Jordan are ##22 and 23. Magic? 63rd, just behind George McGinnis and Terry Cummings.
So - Magic Johnson was a great player, but I have him at #6 overall, just behind....
#5 Tim Duncan - now, Duncan makes it this high on the list because he is the second greatest team defensive anchor of all-time behind Bill Russell. Duncan is #2 in Defensive Win Share, #3 in career Defensive Rating. Tim Duncan had 16 seasons with a Defensive rating equal to or under 99. He had 9 seasons with a Defensive rating of 95 or lower, both all-time records. Duncan was the on-court offensive and defensive star of the Spurs from 1998 through 2015. That is almost impossible to believe. Tim Duncan has more .16 or greater WS/48 seasons (18) than even Kareem -- http://bkref.com/tiny/4cGul
The only thing that kept Duncan from winning his 6th title is his coach's bizarre decision to take him off the floor at the end of Game 6, 2013. Duncan owns the NBA playoff season with the most one-player Win Shares (5.9WS, LeBron had 5.8 one year) one of the few playoff records not owned by LeBron or Jordan.
Duncan had a stretch where he went 2-1-1-2 in MVP balloting. He is basically Bill Russell playing in the modern era with good offensive skills. 10X first-team all-NBA, 15X all-NBA overall.
So, if I love Tim Duncan so much: 1) why don't I marry him; and 2) why isn't he top 4? Well, Duncan suffers from one issue that is similar to Magic. He only had one 17+ WS season. Like Magic, Duncan was actually a better player in the playoffs, therefore, his regular season stats suffer by comparison. But make no mistake, Tim Duncan is the greatest power forward of all-time, and the #5 all-time greatest player.
(Final Note - I really never cared for Tim Duncan on the court - super whiny, seemed remarkably conceited, never committed a foul. But again, give the Devil his due.)
23 MVPs (average of almost 4)
18 Finals MVPs (average of 3)
58 first-team all-NBA's (average of almost 10)
They rank 1-2-3-5-9 and 11 in MVP Award Shares -- https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/nba_mvp_shares.html
They are the top 6 all-time in playoff Win Shares -- https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_career_p.html yet despite huge minutes also rank 1-6-8-11 and 14 in WS/48 for the playoffs.
They rank 1-2-3-5-10-12 in most Win Shares as a First-Team All-NBA player. http://bkref.com/tiny/5a8Og
OK, so enough of that. These are the best 6 guys.
#6 Magic Johnson -- Magic Johnson had 155.8 career WS, MILES behind anyone else in the top 6. Every other member of the top 6 had over 200 Win Shares. They are ##1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 all-time. Magic is #24. We obviously know the reason for this was Magic's tragic AIDS diagnosis. But, whatever is the case, it is hard to move him above these guys when every one of them has him by 50+ Win Shares. That is like 7 extra seasons of low-level all-star ball or 3 seasons of MVP-level ball.
Let's examine Magic's case for moving up -- well, was he more productive on a per minute basis? No. Of the 6 guys, he only has a WS/48 better than Duncan. So, how about VORP (sometimes VORP more accurately measures high production players). No, he is the worst of the group for whom VORP can be calculated. (Wilt has no VORP). How about we just count up 10 WS seasons -- OK, Magic had 11, great. That is the same as Jordan, but worse than Duncan (12), Wilt (13), LeBron (14) and Kareem (16). Advanced stats are not Magic's friend. You want some support for the old guys' "Magic is a pale imitation of Oscar" storyline, line up Oscar's WS and Magic's per season. Oscar wins all 13 years. All 13. Magic wins none.
In NBA/ABA history, there have been 58 seasons where a guy had over 17 Win Shares. Magic had no such seasons. Zero. Magic's best season was the 68th best season of all-time. Alex Groza has two seasons higher on the list. Bob McAdoo has one. More to the point, the 5 guys I have ranked above Magic have 27 such seasons.
So, all of these advanced stats do not favor Magic moving out of 6th. So what does he have to hang his hat on? He has 3 MVPs, 3 Finals MVPs, 2nd in career assist, 5 titles, 9 Finals, his offensive rating is 121, which is 3rd best all-time behind Chris Paul and Reggie Miller. He has 9X First-team All-NBA wins. From 1983-91, Magic was regarded as top 3 in MVP balloting 8 times. So, there is a lot to recommend about Magic.
But, in my opinion, he has to stop here for two reasons other than Advanced Stats: 1) his career was cut short; whether that be fair or not or "his own fault" or not, it is true. The 5 guys in front of him played longer and were more productive over the long haul; and 2) Every player above Magic on my list was regarded at some point in his career as a "plus" defender. Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, LeBron, Duncan, all feared defenders. When Magic came into the league, the old guys who had watched basketball said, "My lord will they have to hide him on defense." By 1988, the Pistons had decided that they would play a three-guard offense and go to whomever Magic was guarding. This is a statement made by the Pistons' actual players. Imagine saying this about any of those five other guys. Duncan, Kareem and Wilt are top 5 in career Defensive Win Shares. LeBron and Jordan are ##22 and 23. Magic? 63rd, just behind George McGinnis and Terry Cummings.
So - Magic Johnson was a great player, but I have him at #6 overall, just behind....
#5 Tim Duncan - now, Duncan makes it this high on the list because he is the second greatest team defensive anchor of all-time behind Bill Russell. Duncan is #2 in Defensive Win Share, #3 in career Defensive Rating. Tim Duncan had 16 seasons with a Defensive rating equal to or under 99. He had 9 seasons with a Defensive rating of 95 or lower, both all-time records. Duncan was the on-court offensive and defensive star of the Spurs from 1998 through 2015. That is almost impossible to believe. Tim Duncan has more .16 or greater WS/48 seasons (18) than even Kareem -- http://bkref.com/tiny/4cGul
The only thing that kept Duncan from winning his 6th title is his coach's bizarre decision to take him off the floor at the end of Game 6, 2013. Duncan owns the NBA playoff season with the most one-player Win Shares (5.9WS, LeBron had 5.8 one year) one of the few playoff records not owned by LeBron or Jordan.
Duncan had a stretch where he went 2-1-1-2 in MVP balloting. He is basically Bill Russell playing in the modern era with good offensive skills. 10X first-team all-NBA, 15X all-NBA overall.
So, if I love Tim Duncan so much: 1) why don't I marry him; and 2) why isn't he top 4? Well, Duncan suffers from one issue that is similar to Magic. He only had one 17+ WS season. Like Magic, Duncan was actually a better player in the playoffs, therefore, his regular season stats suffer by comparison. But make no mistake, Tim Duncan is the greatest power forward of all-time, and the #5 all-time greatest player.
(Final Note - I really never cared for Tim Duncan on the court - super whiny, seemed remarkably conceited, never committed a foul. But again, give the Devil his due.)
##8 and 7 -- Shaquille O'Neal and Bill Russell
#8 Shaquille O'Neal -- Look, the big fella was virtually never in shape after 1999. He was often heavy and enjoyed life, even if it meant missing regular season games. That explains his 1 MVP Award in the regular season. Despite this, he ranks 7th in MVP Award Shares. So, he was great despite himself.
Shaq won 4 titles, and 3 Finals MVPs. The others with that accomplishment? Michael, Magic, Duncan. No one else. Shaq has 31 playoff Win Shares, playing at a WS/48 rate of .184. There are 7 such players. These 6 guys and Bill Russell are above Shaq and this list. If you take this list:
Shaq (counting 1st, 2nd and 3rd team awards) was 14X all-NBA as a center. During his career, he played against Hall of Fame centers Patrick Ewing, Hakeem, David Robinson, Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutombo, Yao Ming and against Tim Duncan (who says he is a center when it suits him).
Shaq should probably be at #7, but you need to find some place to put Bill Russell.
#7 Bill Russell -- #1 all-time in Defensive Win Shares; the Finals MVP Award is named...........after Bill Russell. He won 11 titles, losing only once to Bob Pettit and once to Wilt. He is the greatest defensive basketball player of all-time. Russell has 133 Defensive Win Shares, 27 more than second place Tim Duncan, roughly 40 more than Kareem, Hakeem, Wilt, KG, Karl Malone and roughly 50 more than anyone else!!
Russell's dominance from a winning perspective has never been matched, ever. It probably never will be matched if they play basketball for 2,000 more years. Russell was a 5X MVP and probably would have won 5+ Finals MVPs, but the award did not exist until 1968!
So - if the guy is so historically great (and he obviously was) why do I drop him off here? Well, he shot 44% from the field, although he got a ton of dunks and layups. He shot 56% from the line. Of the 82 guys who played at least 34,000 NBA minutes, Russell ranked 72nd in total points, 72nd in FG%, 80th in FT% (Shaq and Wilt were worse) and 81st in TS% (Nate Thurmond was worse, Paul Silas was better).
In a really, really weird twist of logic, Wilt had 7 first-team all-NBA's to Russell's 3. These all occurred while Wilt was playing against Russell. But in the same time period Russell had 5 MVPs to Wilt's 4. Russ in an 8 year stretch of MVP balloting had 5 wins, 2 seconds and a 3rd. In a 9 year stretch, Wilt had 4 wins, 2 seconds, a 4th a 5th and a 7th. Wilt played better longer, Wilt had more rebounds. Wilt had far superior offensive stats and advanced stats.
If you look at Win Shares, Russell's career "high to low" rating (rounding) goes 17-17-15-14-14-13-13-12-12-11-11-8-6. Very similar to Shaq's.
Wilt's? 25-23-22-21-21-20-19-18-17-16-15-15-13-2
Russell was the more successful player (and perhaps more valuable to the team he was on). He was NOT the better player. Wilt was the better player, by a lot.
Shaq won 4 titles, and 3 Finals MVPs. The others with that accomplishment? Michael, Magic, Duncan. No one else. Shaq has 31 playoff Win Shares, playing at a WS/48 rate of .184. There are 7 such players. These 6 guys and Bill Russell are above Shaq and this list. If you take this list:
http://bkref.com/tiny/jLo5V and look at all the guys with as many or more WS as a first-team all-NBA player, Shaq ranks..........7th on WS/48.
Shaq (counting 1st, 2nd and 3rd team awards) was 14X all-NBA as a center. During his career, he played against Hall of Fame centers Patrick Ewing, Hakeem, David Robinson, Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutombo, Yao Ming and against Tim Duncan (who says he is a center when it suits him).
Shaq should probably be at #7, but you need to find some place to put Bill Russell.
#7 Bill Russell -- #1 all-time in Defensive Win Shares; the Finals MVP Award is named...........after Bill Russell. He won 11 titles, losing only once to Bob Pettit and once to Wilt. He is the greatest defensive basketball player of all-time. Russell has 133 Defensive Win Shares, 27 more than second place Tim Duncan, roughly 40 more than Kareem, Hakeem, Wilt, KG, Karl Malone and roughly 50 more than anyone else!!
Russell's dominance from a winning perspective has never been matched, ever. It probably never will be matched if they play basketball for 2,000 more years. Russell was a 5X MVP and probably would have won 5+ Finals MVPs, but the award did not exist until 1968!
So - if the guy is so historically great (and he obviously was) why do I drop him off here? Well, he shot 44% from the field, although he got a ton of dunks and layups. He shot 56% from the line. Of the 82 guys who played at least 34,000 NBA minutes, Russell ranked 72nd in total points, 72nd in FG%, 80th in FT% (Shaq and Wilt were worse) and 81st in TS% (Nate Thurmond was worse, Paul Silas was better).
In a really, really weird twist of logic, Wilt had 7 first-team all-NBA's to Russell's 3. These all occurred while Wilt was playing against Russell. But in the same time period Russell had 5 MVPs to Wilt's 4. Russ in an 8 year stretch of MVP balloting had 5 wins, 2 seconds and a 3rd. In a 9 year stretch, Wilt had 4 wins, 2 seconds, a 4th a 5th and a 7th. Wilt played better longer, Wilt had more rebounds. Wilt had far superior offensive stats and advanced stats.
If you look at Win Shares, Russell's career "high to low" rating (rounding) goes 17-17-15-14-14-13-13-12-12-11-11-8-6. Very similar to Shaq's.
Wilt's? 25-23-22-21-21-20-19-18-17-16-15-15-13-2
Russell was the more successful player (and perhaps more valuable to the team he was on). He was NOT the better player. Wilt was the better player, by a lot.
##10 and 9 -- Jerry West and Larry Bird
#10 - Jerry West
As we move along, we need to make tough decisions. West is the logo for the league....literally. There is a good reason for that. West had 162 WS, He had a career WS/48 of .213, he had a playoff WS of 26.7 and a WS/48 of .203. His teams (largely led by him) reached the NBA Finals 9 times. While his record was 1-8, he had 7 seasons where he averaged 30+ points for an entire playoff season.
Every single one of these statistics places Jerry West over Larry Bird. Every one. He scored more total points than Bird, he had more total assists than Bird. He had 10 first-team all-NBA's to Bird's 9. In 2015, I rated him higher than Bird.
OK, that said, why does Bird beat him this time around? Well, Bird has 3 MVP's and 2 Finals MVPs to West's 0 and 1. The guys on my Top 10 list rank 1-7th, 9th, 11th and 24th in MVP Award Shares. West is 24th. Rightly or wrongly, I have decided this year to give more credit to what the contemporary MVP voters said and how the player was perceived when he played. While that certainly cannot be the sole criteria (Steve Nash and Steph Curry are down at the bottom of my list, for example) it is hard to ignore that while Jerry West was thought of 4X as a top 2 player and 8X as a top 5 player, Bird had a stretch where he went 2-2-2-1-1-1-3-2. He was regarded as a top 3 player 8 times, the best player three times and one of the two best players 7 times.
Bird had a higher peak. It lasted less time, and West over 14 years was overall more productive than Bird over 13 years, but Bird's 8 year stretch is hard to ignore. He is, by a little, a "better" player who had a "better" career.
#9 Larry Bird
I have done a LOT of thinking and writing regarding Larry Bird. He was #13 last time around. What is my big problem with Larry Bird? This -- http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2017/12/larry-bird-is-overrated-as-playoff.html Bird simply did not perform in the playoffs as he did in the regular season. And he did not play that long, so his WS/48 (you would expect) should be WAY higher because he did not have the declining years that, say, Kareem and LeBron have had. But really, out of 9 big playoff seasons, Bird had two great seasons, 1 very good season, and 6 pretty mediocre seasons. He was basically a little better than Karl Malone and a little worse than Kevin McHale on a per 48 basis.
Of the top 50 playoff WS performers, Bird ranks 11th in WS, 37th in WS/48 and 35th in TS%.
With those two significant marks against him, I left him at #13 last time. But in 2018 I have chosen to focus more on success and achievements and a little less on advanced stats. This may be a weakness of mine in 2018, but it is what I have chosen to do. So Bird moves up - you cannot dispute his 3 MVPs, his two Finals MVPs, his 9X all-NBAs and the fact that MVP voters went 2-2-2-1-1-1-3-2 for him during his 8 best years.
As we move along, we need to make tough decisions. West is the logo for the league....literally. There is a good reason for that. West had 162 WS, He had a career WS/48 of .213, he had a playoff WS of 26.7 and a WS/48 of .203. His teams (largely led by him) reached the NBA Finals 9 times. While his record was 1-8, he had 7 seasons where he averaged 30+ points for an entire playoff season.
Every single one of these statistics places Jerry West over Larry Bird. Every one. He scored more total points than Bird, he had more total assists than Bird. He had 10 first-team all-NBA's to Bird's 9. In 2015, I rated him higher than Bird.
OK, that said, why does Bird beat him this time around? Well, Bird has 3 MVP's and 2 Finals MVPs to West's 0 and 1. The guys on my Top 10 list rank 1-7th, 9th, 11th and 24th in MVP Award Shares. West is 24th. Rightly or wrongly, I have decided this year to give more credit to what the contemporary MVP voters said and how the player was perceived when he played. While that certainly cannot be the sole criteria (Steve Nash and Steph Curry are down at the bottom of my list, for example) it is hard to ignore that while Jerry West was thought of 4X as a top 2 player and 8X as a top 5 player, Bird had a stretch where he went 2-2-2-1-1-1-3-2. He was regarded as a top 3 player 8 times, the best player three times and one of the two best players 7 times.
Bird had a higher peak. It lasted less time, and West over 14 years was overall more productive than Bird over 13 years, but Bird's 8 year stretch is hard to ignore. He is, by a little, a "better" player who had a "better" career.
#9 Larry Bird
I have done a LOT of thinking and writing regarding Larry Bird. He was #13 last time around. What is my big problem with Larry Bird? This -- http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2017/12/larry-bird-is-overrated-as-playoff.html Bird simply did not perform in the playoffs as he did in the regular season. And he did not play that long, so his WS/48 (you would expect) should be WAY higher because he did not have the declining years that, say, Kareem and LeBron have had. But really, out of 9 big playoff seasons, Bird had two great seasons, 1 very good season, and 6 pretty mediocre seasons. He was basically a little better than Karl Malone and a little worse than Kevin McHale on a per 48 basis.
Of the top 50 playoff WS performers, Bird ranks 11th in WS, 37th in WS/48 and 35th in TS%.
With those two significant marks against him, I left him at #13 last time. But in 2018 I have chosen to focus more on success and achievements and a little less on advanced stats. This may be a weakness of mine in 2018, but it is what I have chosen to do. So Bird moves up - you cannot dispute his 3 MVPs, his two Finals MVPs, his 9X all-NBAs and the fact that MVP voters went 2-2-2-1-1-1-3-2 for him during his 8 best years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)