Retro Player of the Year Project

Dr Positivity · Post #931 » by **Dr Positivity** » Sun Sep 5, 2010 7:52 pm

Yeah and as mentioned, you put Russ on the Cats and it opens the door to make offensive sieve trades - like calling up the Cavs for Jamison or the Raptors for Calderon. Add those guys to Russ, Sjax, Wallace and you have an easy contender

Manuel Calavera · Post #932 » by **Manuel Calavera** » Mon Sep 6, 2010 1:07 am

ronnymac2 wrote:
Manuel Calavera wrote:
ronnymac2 wrote:
Not really. You take the most talented (EX: Wilt at number one in 69).

Not exactly. I take the best player in a season, I'm not even sure what most talented means. Wilt was #1 in 1969 because I didn't hold the circumstantial stuff like his coach hating him against him, he was still the best player.

How was he better than Russell though? How was he better than his teammate, Jerry West? He wasn't as dominant on defense as Russell. He wasn't even that great of an offensive anchor that year, so he doesn't gain his usual advantage over Russell. And I can't trust him to change the way he plays.

I know you're going to tell me that he shouldn't change and that he was just following a coach's orders and his coach hated him. My response is that the ten-year veteran, the highest-paid player in the league, the guy with more talent than anybody I've ever seen (who is a smart player in a technical sense, as in reading defenses for passing, etc.), should still be able to switch gears and do what is necessary on the floor for his team. 1969 Wilt didn't do that for me.

We definitely disagree on this, however, the criteria we're using to evaluate players after we've analyzed the situation (like you have above, and that we disagree on) is practically the same. That's all I wanted to point out.

ronnymac2 · Post #933 » by **ronnymac2** » Mon Sep 6, 2010 6:44 am

^^^All right.

Jimmy- I don't think that offense will be good enough. Just my opinion though.

Sedale Threatt · Post #934 » by **Sedale Threatt** » Tue Sep 7, 2010 5:39 pm

So, I posted a pretty decent site for buying old games the other day. And then I found this one:

http://www.nbaondvdbest.com/

Pretty jaw-dropping library of games. Dude's got almost 400 games for Magic Johnson alone.

DumbyTheWizard · Post #935 » by **DumbyTheWizard** » Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:22 pm

There is a problam with the DOLEM.POY site. the 67/68 season isnt there and the 66/67 is listed as 67/68.

Post #936 » by **semi-sentient** » Thu Sep 9, 2010 1:30 pm

^^^ It's been corrected now. I had missed the 67-68 season somehow and when I plugged in the numbers it threw the other seasons out of whack.

Jimmy76 · Post #937 » by **Jimmy76** » Thu Sep 9, 2010 11:27 pm

When were people thinking of doing the top 100 again? Thanks to this project I'm confident enough in my knowledge of NBA history to participate. Next summer might be a good time since this season could be a big historical perspective impact year especially in Kobe and Lebrons legacy.

Post #938 » by **mopper8** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:28 am

Jimmy76 wrote:When were people thinking of doing the top 100 again? Thanks to this project I'm confident enough in my knowledge of NBA history to participate. Next summer might be a good time since this season could be a big historical perspective impact year especially in Kobe and Lebrons legacy.

I had asked a similar question a week or so ago, probably not going to happen until next offseason. I, for one, would love to take part in another top-100, though I also would enjoy doing an all-time draft/tournament thing like we did a few years ago on this board.

That being said, I'd be happy doing either. Still, not happening for another 10 months unfortunately.

Post #939 » by **mopper8** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:17 am

Looking at the dolem site, I can't help but thinking that either you guys really love D-Wade or (more likely IMO) he has been criminally underrated in real-life MVP voting. Chris Paul, just for example, has more total award shares than D-Wade does.

Post #940 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:47 am

mopper8 wrote:Looking at the dolem site, I can't help but thinking that either you guys really love D-Wade or (more likely IMO) he has been criminally underrated in real-life MVP voting. Chris Paul, just for example, has more total award shares than D-Wade does.

The big difference is in the Shaq years, where I don't think there's any doubt that Wade was severely underrated. If memory serves, you and I both had Wade as a strong contender for the '06 MVP, but we were in a pretty small minority.

JordansBulls · Post #941 » by **JordansBulls** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:52 am

Yeah, also in this POY you can tell longevitity beats out prime. Example: Karl Malone beat out Hakeem,

Also competition and the guys you have to battle out. Example: Duncan over Hakeem by more than 2 points or Duncan over Shaq.

Post #942 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:14 am

JordansBulls wrote:Yeah, also in this POY you can tell longevitity beats out prime. Example: Karl Malone beat out Hakeem,

Also competition and the guys you have to battle out. Example: Duncan over Hakeem by more than 2 points or Duncan over Shaq.

Well, it can, but not necessarily. For example, Bill Walton does better than a lot of greats who played a lot longer. I think the more precise statement is that by giving equal credit to the field for each year, you underrate the most dominant of players, and those who had to face the most dominant players.

Post #943 » by **mopper8** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:24 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
mopper8 wrote:Looking at the dolem site, I can't help but thinking that either you guys really love D-Wade or (more likely IMO) he has been criminally underrated in real-life MVP voting. Chris Paul, just for example, has more total award shares than D-Wade does.

The big difference is in the Shaq years, where I don't think there's any doubt that Wade was severely underrated. If memory serves, you and I both had Wade as a strong contender for the '06 MVP, but we were in a pretty small minority.

Yep. John Hollinger actually had a front-pager on ESPN online making the case for Wade for MVP in early/mid March IIRC. In one of the biggest travesties of MVP voting though, a guy who averaged 27/7/6 as the best player on a 52-win 2-seed got 0 1st-place votes (fewer than Elton Brand's 1 and Chauncey Billups' 15!), finished 6th in voting with .07 shares. I know Detroit had 64 wins and the best record in the league and what not, but Billups getting literally 5 times the award shares as Wade that year is a joke.

Post #944 » by **mopper8** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:22 am

Random question...I was going back and re-reading the voting for various seasons in the 2000-2010 range, and one think I noticed is that, especially early on, people's criteria for voting was still nebulous, which is totally understandable. As the project goes on, it would make sense you one would start to more clearly get a handle on the relative weights of regular season production vs post-season production vs team success etc etc...so I am wondering: do you think if you went back and re-did the earliest threads, that you would still vote the same?

Or, has the actual process of doing this project changed the way you think about basketball in general and/or player evaluation in specific enough that you would actually vote differently on the more-recent seasons?

I have to say, just reading this project intermittently (and I missed a lot of the 70's/80s) has changed the way I think about basketball, or, more accurately I think, it mainly has clarified for me a lot of previously-vague notions I had about basketball, if that makes sense. There were things that maybe I sorta-kinda thought/knew but couldn't verbalize or specifically access, I guess, but now they are much more clear and salient and easily-used tools.

And I will say that I do think my perspective has somewhat changed, if only slightly, overall.

Post #945 » by **penbeast0** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:45 am

Some misconceptions I had of the 60s . . .For some reason I thought that the top teams were pretty consistently Boston, then Philly, then LA and St. Louis with Cinncinnati rarely breaking .500. Oscar and company were pretty impressive in 64 and 65 though . . . had to rethink his impact a little. And, as the most recent thread shows, I caught myself voting for Jerry Lucas (20/20 with good efficiency but weak defense on the 2nd best team) over Wilt (35/23/3 with intimidating if inconsistent defense but little team impact) . . . .I see nothing wrong with favoring the winners over the statmongers but seeing 35/23 with more defensive impact and dismissing it mentally because it's "just another Wilt season" is a bit much. Fortunately a comment of Warspite's caught me up.

Deus_DJ · Post #946 » by **Deus_DJ** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:17 pm

penbeast0 wrote:Some misconceptions I had of the 60s . . .For some reason I thought that the top teams were pretty consistently Boston, then Philly, then LA and St. Louis with Cinncinnati rarely breaking .500. Oscar and company were pretty impressive in 64 and 65 though . . . had to rethink his impact a little. And, as the most recent thread shows, I caught myself voting for Jerry Lucas (20/20 with good efficiency but weak defense on the 2nd best team) over Wilt (35/23/3 with intimidating if inconsistent defense but little team impact) . . . .I see nothing wrong with favoring the winners over the statmongers but seeing 35/23 with more defensive impact and dismissing it mentally because it's "just another Wilt season" is a bit much. Fortunately a comment of Warspite's caught me up.

You also have to remember that this was not just another year for him...he was in ROUGH shape in 1964/5. He had a heart attack(the official line is pancreatitis but too many other sources have said it was a heart attack) and he played poorly through the season...he knew it, the players knew it, and coach hannum knew it before he was traded. Something still rarely discussed is that the reason he was traded was not just because they felt Wilt was going to retire...but because a few doctors had privately said that they don't think Wilt would LIVE another year.

Dr Positivity · Post #947 » by **Dr Positivity** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:26 pm

mopper8 wrote:Random question...I was going back and re-reading the voting for various seasons in the 2000-2010 range, and one think I noticed is that, especially early on, people's criteria for voting was still nebulous, which is totally understandable. As the project goes on, it would make sense you one would start to more clearly get a handle on the relative weights of regular season production vs post-season production vs team success etc etc...so I am wondering: do you think if you went back and re-did the earliest threads, that you would still vote the same?

Or, has the actual process of doing this project changed the way you think about basketball in general and/or player evaluation in specific enough that you would actually vote differently on the more-recent seasons?

I have to say, just reading this project intermittently (and I missed a lot of the 70's/80s) has changed the way I think about basketball, or, more accurately I think, it mainly has clarified for me a lot of previously-vague notions I had about basketball, if that makes sense. There were things that maybe I sorta-kinda thought/knew but couldn't verbalize or specifically access, I guess, but now they are much more clear and salient and easily-used tools.

And I will say that I do think my perspective has somewhat changed, if only slightly, overall.

08 is the only year I'm not comfortable with. I put KG first but in retrospect, probably too much of a 'he won the title' vote when you compare it to Kobe and Paul's seasons. I remember they seemed like the two players of the year after the RS. Just a tough year to do early though, #1 only has .692 shares which is less than most 2nds. Also I don't know how Lebron got 6 #1s for what seems like one of his weaker years, especially compared to Paul/Kobe... but then again I put him #1 in 07 so maybe I shouldn't talk

I actually wouldn't be opposed to redoing 2008. It seems like a lot of us here are having second thoughts about that vote

shawngoat23 · Post #948 » by **shawngoat23** » Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:12 am

Dr Mufasa wrote:08 is the only year I'm not comfortable with. I put KG first but in retrospect, probably too much of a 'he won the title' vote when you compare it to Kobe and Paul's seasons. I remember they seemed like the two players of the year after the RS. Just a tough year to do early though, #1 only has .692 shares which is less than most 2nds. Also I don't know how Lebron got 6 #1s for what seems like one of his weaker years, especially compared to Paul/Kobe... but then again I put him #1 in 07 so maybe I shouldn't talk

I actually wouldn't be opposed to redoing 2008. It seems like a lot of us here are having second thoughts about that vote

I regret putting Garnett (#2) above Kobe (#3) in retrospect, but I stand by having Chris Paul above both. I think he was simply more outstanding and I think the fact that his team didn't have as much success wasn't as much due to whatever he lacked in intangibles, but because his team flat out didn't have the same amount of talent.

Our earlier voting panels contained a lot of Kobe and especially LeBron fans who pretty much quit the project after their favorite players were no longer eligible. There was a lot of the same phenomenon from the last Top 100 list.

Post #949 » by **mopper8** » Sun Sep 12, 2010 5:14 am

Voting panel probably would've looked a lot different if you'd started at, say, 1954 with the advent of the shotclock, and then moved forward from there.

Post #950 » by **semi-sentient** » Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:18 pm

Dr Mufasa wrote:I actually wouldn't be opposed to redoing 2008. It seems like a lot of us here are having second thoughts about that vote

I'd be in favor as well.

Many people have claimed to be uncomfortable with how that year turned out, and that's probably because the deeper we've gotten into the project the more we've gotten into the habit of considering the importance of team success and post-season play. During the regular season it was clearly a battle between Kobe and CP3 as the best in the game. They were the only two MVP candidates. In the post-season, I think Kobe separated himself by playing exceptionally well until he went up against one of the most dominant defenses ever. Still, it's hard for me to imagine how in the world he was getting so many 3rd (7) and 4th (4) place votes that year. It just doesn't add up at all.

I wonder what DoctorMJ's thoughts are on that?