Retro Player of the Year 1953-54 — George Mikan

[Doctor MJ]

I can appreciate the effort put into this post and yes I'm aware that +/- is a key element of why some players are seen as great players on bad teams while others might not be(which obviously doesn't extend to players from the 80's and earlier). The one point I want to make about Johnston though relative to 53 and beyond(and I also can concede that playoff numbers are part of why some are low him but there's only like 3-4 series from his prime years) is everything I've already mentioned above plus the fact that he was a key part of a title team just 3 years later. So I don't think a lot of the empty stats type arguments should be used in the same way they might be with other players. Just like KG going to the Celtics and leading historic defenses and some great teams kind of vindicates him in many ways because winning does that. So I think the same should hold true with Johnston to some degree. Not that it makes him a top 40 player of all time but he's a guy that I think got left off the last top 100 so its just saying that not too many guys from his decade could claim to have been the 1b or #2 on a title team, on top of him leading the league in win shares and other things however many times.

So, I understand why you're reading my post and thinking "He's saying Johnston's an empty stats guy", but I said what I said to try to convey more than that. To stick with the "empty stats" terminology, I might say this:

A player doing can do the same basic stuff in two situation, and in one situation be effectively empty stats, and in another, not-empty stats.

Now you might say in response to that, "If he's doing something that would be valuable on a great team, then isn't it winning bias to hold his crappy teammates against him?". But there's a subtle assumption there that X production has a standard Y value that I object to. Your value is always contextually dependent, and yes, there's contextual luck always lurking as a factor when we talk about the achievement of these players.

Re: key part of a title team 3 years later. I don't want to rush that conversation, but I will say this:

I think Johnston deserves some definite credit for that chip. But in the playoffs I don't think folks should think it a given that Johnston was more valuable than teammates Jack George & Tom Gola -- to say nothing of Arizin. And so that's the thing: If Johnston in the playoffs for a contender is a George-level player, well, then how much should we care that he can put up huge regular season numbers as the alpha on meh teams?

This question of whether Johnston's disappointing playoff stats represent something inherent to his limitations, or just bad injury luck, is not one where I'm trying to insist on an answer, but yeah, it would be easier to elevate Johnston for me if he had a dominant playoff run in his career. As it is, if you've never looked at Johnston's playoff numbers closely, I think you should.

[Cavsfansince84]

So, I understand why you're reading my post and thinking "He's saying Johnston's an empty stats guy", but I said what I said to try to convey more than that. To stick with the "empty stats" terminology, I might say this:

A player doing can do the same basic stuff in two situation, and in one situation be effectively empty stats, and in another, not-empty stats.

Now you might say in response to that, "If he's doing something that would be valuable on a great team, then isn't it winning bias to hold his crappy teammates against him?". But there's a subtle assumption there that X production has a standard Y value that I object to. Your value is always contextually dependent, and yes, there's contextual luck always lurking as a factor when we talk about the achievement of these players.

Re: key part of a title team 3 years later. I don't want to rush that conversation, but I will say this:

I think Johnston deserves some definite credit for that chip. But in the playoffs I don't think folks should think it a given that Johnston was more valuable than teammates Jack George & Tom Gola -- to say nothing of Arizin. And so that's the thing: If Johnston in the playoffs for a contender is a George-level player, well, then how much should we care that he can put up huge regular season numbers as the alpha on meh teams?

This question of whether Johnston's disappointing playoff stats represent something inherent to his limitations, or just bad injury luck, is not one where I'm trying to insist on an answer, but yeah, it would be easier to elevate Johnston for me if he had a dominant playoff run in his career. As it is, if you've never looked at Johnston's playoff numbers closely, I think you should.

I wasn't really getting 'empty stats' from your post. That was a comment someone else made in this thread and a general point that I've seen made regarding Johnston before. Regarding the title run, Johnston had one great series and one somewhat bad one. I think he was a co #1 in the series they won 3-2 and was more like a co#3 in that finals with George. I am familiar with his playoff numbers which is why I mentioned it above as something used to question his impact.

[Doctor MJ]

So, I understand why you're reading my post and thinking "He's saying Johnston's an empty stats guy", but I said what I said to try to convey more than that. To stick with the "empty stats" terminology, I might say this:

A player doing can do the same basic stuff in two situation, and in one situation be effectively empty stats, and in another, not-empty stats.

Now you might say in response to that, "If he's doing something that would be valuable on a great team, then isn't it winning bias to hold his crappy teammates against him?". But there's a subtle assumption there that X production has a standard Y value that I object to. Your value is always contextually dependent, and yes, there's contextual luck always lurking as a factor when we talk about the achievement of these players.

Re: key part of a title team 3 years later. I don't want to rush that conversation, but I will say this:

I think Johnston deserves some definite credit for that chip. But in the playoffs I don't think folks should think it a given that Johnston was more valuable than teammates Jack George & Tom Gola -- to say nothing of Arizin. And so that's the thing: If Johnston in the playoffs for a contender is a George-level player, well, then how much should we care that he can put up huge regular season numbers as the alpha on meh teams?

This question of whether Johnston's disappointing playoff stats represent something inherent to his limitations, or just bad injury luck, is not one where I'm trying to insist on an answer, but yeah, it would be easier to elevate Johnston for me if he had a dominant playoff run in his career. As it is, if you've never looked at Johnston's playoff numbers closely, I think you should.

I wasn't really getting 'empty stats' from your post. That was a comment someone else made in this thread and a general point that I've seen made regarding Johnston before. Regarding the title run, Johnston had one great series and one somewhat bad one. I think he was a co #1 in the series they won 3-2 and was more like a co#3 in that finals with George. I am familiar with his playoff numbers which is why I mentioned it above as something used to question his impact.

I'm glad you weren't getting that from my post.

Re: Johnston had one great series and one somewhat bad one, co-#1 in the first, Co#3 in finals. My quick thoughts:

He did have a fine series against the Nationals, though I would point out that Johnston's whole argument typically over Arizin was that he was the more efficient scorer. I would note that Johnston got more shot attempts but scored less points than Arizin. Now, on one level this is minor bragging rights and not something I want to push an extreme opinion on, but I do think it's worth recalling that Arizin was the perimeter player and Johnston was the interior player. For Johnston to have more shots than Arizin then this is probably due to one or both of these possibilities:

1. Johnston was getting extra shots from his rebounding.

2. The offense was running so as to push the ball into Johnston first, and then if he didn't have a shot he was passing out - and the assists line up with that too.

What's interesting here is that as I've alluded to elsewhere, I think in general what we've found as the NBA has evolved is that you don't want to force the ball into the interior unless that's better overall in its effectiveness (including things like passing TOs) than just letting the perimeter talents you have keep control. And the "better overall in its effectiveness" generally assumes that that interior guy will get a much better box score than any of his perimeter teammates would be capable of.

So then, we're to see a big man-first offense in a situation where they have a perimeter player who is clearly capable of scoring very efficiently at volume.

To put it mildly, this isn't how things worked on the team in '51-52, but when Arizin returned, he was pretty clear about changing his game to work around Johnston. I don't know what all that entailed, but it was definitely partly about him taking shots from further away, because with Johnston and his man in the paint, there wasn't space in there to operate.

Okay, moving on to the finals: When you call this a "co#3" performance from Johnston, it makes sense, but we should keep in mind that it's not like Johnston simply transformed into a role player here. He shot poorly.

In the regular season he shot 45.7% FG.
In the previous playoff series he shot 45.5%.
In the finals he shot 33.8%.

Next keep in mind that Johnston was the guy tasked with cleaning the boards for the Warriors.
In the first playoff series, Johnston looked like an absolute stud doing this getting more rebounds than anyone else (17.6), and allowing his team to dominate on the glass.
But in the finals? The Pistons has the two top rebounders, and the Pistons won the battle of the boards.

Of course the Warriors won so winning said battle doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, it's just the Warriors won quite specifically when Johnston was NOT able to do his thing, leading us to the very last game of the series where Johnston shoots 2-13 and teammates Grabowski, Gola & Arizin all collect more boards than he does.

Now, forgetting about how much credit each guy should get for the series in question, I think the tale of two series makes us ask about the matchup. Like is it a coincidence that Johnston looked like he had his whole game disrupted when going up against a duo like Foust & Yardley? Maybe it's all about health, but Foust may well have been the toughest s.o.b. in the league at that point, which also makes him someone you really don't want to face when you're a bit hurt.

And of course this gets into some of the concerns about Johnston. Whether the stories were fair, the stories of the late '50s and Johnston were of him struggling to keep play his game in the way of the new giants.

And I can't help be perceive some truth in what they say:

Arizin was a 6'4" slasher with an unusually modern shooting form that he could use out to depth, and who also had a knack for the boards relative to other perimeter players.
Johnston was a 6'8" big man whose game was dependent on hook shots and winning the battle for the board.

Does someone with Arizin's description play today? Absolutely.
Does someone with Johnston's description play in the NBA today? I don't think so.

Doesn't mean Johnston wasn't the best at his time necessarily, but it does mean that if I see some indicators that he struggles against tougher competition, and never really put up "Johnston-like" numbers in the playoffs, I have to wonder if what he was experiencing was a bit of a precursor to the talent that was to come in the league.

[Cavsfansince84]

I'm glad you weren't getting that from my post.

Re: Johnston had one great series and one somewhat bad one, co-#1 in the first, Co#3 in finals. My quick thoughts:

He did have a fine series against the Nationals, though I would point out that Johnston's whole argument typically over Arizin was that he was the more efficient scorer. I would note that Johnston got more shot attempts but scored less points than Arizin. Now, on one level this is minor bragging rights and not something I want to push an extreme opinion on, but I do think it's worth recalling that Arizin was the perimeter player and Johnston was the interior player. For Johnston to have more shots than Arizin then this is probably due to one or both of these possibilities:

1. Johnston was getting extra shots from his rebounding.

2. The offense was running so as to push the ball into Johnston first, and then if he didn't have a shot he was passing out - and the assists line up with that too.

What's interesting here is that as I've alluded to elsewhere, I think in general what we've found as the NBA has evolved is that you don't want to force the ball into the interior unless that's better overall in its effectiveness (including things like passing TOs) than just letting the perimeter talents you have keep control. And the "better overall in its effectiveness" generally assumes that that interior guy will get a much better box score than any of his perimeter teammates would be capable of.

So then, we're to see a big man-first offense in a situation where they have a perimeter player who is clearly capable of scoring very efficiently at volume.

To put it mildly, this isn't how things worked on the team in '51-52, but when Arizin returned, he was pretty clear about changing his game to work around Johnston. I don't know what all that entailed, but it was definitely partly about him taking shots from further away, because with Johnston and his man in the paint, there wasn't space in there to operate.

Okay, moving on to the finals: When you call this a "co#3" performance from Johnston, it makes sense, but we should keep in mind that it's not like Johnston simply transformed into a role player here. He shot poorly.

In the regular season he shot 45.7% FG.
In the previous playoff series he shot 45.5%.
In the finals he shot 33.8%.

Next keep in mind that Johnston was the guy tasked with cleaning the boards for the Warriors.
In the first playoff series, Johnston looked like an absolute stud doing this getting more rebounds than anyone else (17.6), and allowing his team to dominate on the glass.
But in the finals? The Pistons has the two top rebounders, and the Pistons won the battle of the boards.

Of course the Warriors won so winning said battle doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, it's just the Warriors won quite specifically when Johnston was NOT able to do his thing, leading us to the very last game of the series where Johnston shoots 2-13 and teammates Grabowski, Gola & Arizin all collect more boards than he does.

Now, forgetting about how much credit each guy should get for the series in question, I think the tale of two series makes us ask about the matchup. Like is it a coincidence that Johnston looked like he had his whole game disrupted when going up against a duo like Foust & Yardley? Maybe it's all about health, but Foust may well have been the toughest s.o.b. in the league at that point, which also makes him someone you really don't want to face when you're a bit hurt.

And of course this gets into some of the concerns about Johnston. Whether the stories were fair, the stories of the late '50s and Johnston were of him struggling to keep play his game in the way of the new giants.

And I can't help be perceive some truth in what they say:

Arizin was a 6'4" slasher with an unusually modern shooting form that he could use out to depth, and who also had a knack for the boards relative to other perimeter players.
Johnston was a 6'8" big man whose game was dependent on hook shots and winning the battle for the board.

Does someone with Arizin's description play today? Absolutely.
Does someone with Johnston's description play in the NBA today? I don't think so.

Doesn't mean Johnston wasn't the best at his time necessarily, but it does mean that if I see some indicators that he struggles against tougher competition, and never really put up "Johnston-like" numbers in the playoffs, I have to wonder if what he was experiencing was a bit of a precursor to the talent that was to come in the league.

I think there's definitely some innate limitations which come from being a skinny 6-8 center. I wouldn't expect him to have equal impact in the 60's that he had in the 50's but idk how relevant it is to discussing him as a player. I'd think that he could have moved to pf and played there had he not gotten a knee injury later on. Also regarding his #1/#3 status, his shot attempts did go down. He was at 20fga and 10fta in the semifinals then went down to 14/7 in the finals. So he did slot more into a 3 role and didn't drag down the team with poor shooting. Then we have the series in 57 which is only two games where he puts up 19/18/5 on sort of bad shooting. By 58 he'd already injured his knee so I'm guessing its why by the time the playoffs came he was playing much less and put up very modest numbers. So its just 3 series where we see a prime Neil and I think he held up pretty well but either way its such a tiny sample(12 games total) that I don't think it somehow invalidates what he did in the rs over 6-7 seasons.

[trex_8063]

As in the last thread, I'm going to just sort of start and build upon this [my voting post] as I go.....


I see probably four [or maybe five] potential candidates for the rs MVP:
George Mikan - Putting together a reasonably efficient 18.1 ppg and a 2nd-in-league 14.3 boards, while being still [arguably] the league's best rim protector, anchoring one of the two best rs teams in the league. League's best PER [comfortably] and also 3rd-best WS/48, though he's playing fewer minutes than the other leaders [at just 32.8 mpg this year].

Dolph Schayes - A very efficient 17.1 ppg and 12.1 rpg (also 3.0 apg). Filling the C role and playing more minutes than anyone except Paul Seymour for the best defense in the league, leading the team comfortably in boards [is 5th in the league].

Neil Johnston - Leading the league in scoring (by more than +5 over 2nd) at 24.4 ppg on superb shooting efficiency (topping the league in TS Add), and perhaps single-handedly carrying an abysmal offensive cast up to 6th [of 9] in team offense. Though his defense can be questioned, they're not dredging the bottom of the league despite him playing >500 minutes more than anyone else on his team, and at the most defensively consequential position. He leads the team [6th in the league] in rpg, with a rebounding rate that matches Joe Grabowski, fwiw.
And as ZeppelinPage pointed out, he was the unofficial MVP of the season.

Bob Cousy - Again: "the head of the snake" (the snake being the #1 offense in the land). Leading the league in apg while also leading his team [2nd in league] in ppg (and with a TS Add of +63.3 [good for 10th in league]).

Other guys with [perhaps???] dark-horse cases.....
Harry Gallatin - Superbly efficient 13.2 ppg [for #2 offense in league] while leading the league in rpg.
Ed Macauley - With his efficient scoring, he [by the box aggragates] looks like the best player on the Celtics. But again, I think this is sort of a Nash/Stoudemire phenomenon; I just have a hard time believing it wasn't Cousy who was the true engine of that offense.


Player of the Year
1. George Mikan - One final time. As per above, I view him as one of the leading candidates for rs MVP. But among all of them, there is none other that had a more impressive playoff run. During their run to their 5th and final title with Mikan, he upped his scoring 19.4 on an almost absurd +12.1% rTS in the playoffs, while still seemingly maintaining his defensive presence. That translated to a playoff PER of 33.6 and a WS/48 of .391!
He ripped through the round-robin games, leading all in scoring (21 ppg, collectively, in three round robin games) on efficiency that would look elite even by today's standards [was +20.5% rTS relative to the league he played in].
In a close division finals he led all with 20.7 ppg [+5.7 over the next-highest scorer] on +6% rTS.
Then in the Finals they held the Nats to just 70.7 ppg [-12.8 from their rs standard, though injuries are a factor], Mikan seemingly neutralizing [an admittedly injured] Dolph Schayes as a scoring threat, while he himself had a series-best 18.1 ppg @ +7.9% rTS......against the best defense in the league (though injuries [to Syracuse] may apply to some degree).
idk, I just can't see going with anyone else for the year.

2. Dolph Schayes - Although he had a terrible Finals series, he was IN the Finals, and had put up a team-best 20 ppg @ +7% rTS [and 3.5 apg] in the division finals to get there. This, again, after the aforementioned rs, which was in contention for MVP.

3. Neil Johnston - I'm going to give him at least this much due credit, for reasons briefly sketched above. He's trouncing the league in playing time while still maintaining some of the very best rate metrics in the league, and was selected as the unofficial MVP at the time. I suspect this is a squad that wins 8-12 games if you remove him from the picture.

4. Bob Cousy - His efficiency takes a little bit of a dive in the playoffs (actually only 28.4% from the field, fueled by two games against the Nats in which he went 5 of 40 from the field......yikes. otoh, he averaged 12.5 FTA in the playoffs, making 80%. Overally, his TS% isn't too far below league avg, while he's still shouldering huge volume [21.0 ppg and 6.3 apg], despite 4 of 6 playoff games coming against Syracuse (where he was no doubt being guarded by Paul Seymour much of the time).
Interestingly, it doesn't look like the Boston offense caved much at all in the playoffs, and it needs to be noted that Ed Macauley appears to have been playing injured in the playoffs.

5. Harry Gallatin - He had the rs outlined above, and appears to have been very consistent putting up almost identical numbers in the playoffs (albeit in losing efforts, going 0-4 in the round robin). In the final game against Boston [a 1 pt loss], he scored 15 pts on 57% TS (that's about +12.8% rTS); and I'll just assume he led all rebounders in that series.


Offensive Player of the Year
1. Bob Cousy - see above.
2. Neil Johnston - see above. Best scorer in the league, perhaps by a bit of a margin.
3. Ed Macauley - Previously snubbed him in favour of Mikan and his serious playoff rising (whereas Macauley was injured and dropped off a ton in the playoffs). But I realized that's not really consistent with my usual approach, which doesn't weight playoff samples [especially small ones] as heavily as many others do. Macauley was scoring at similar rate/volume as Mikan but with far better efficiency and slightly more apg during the rs. 1b on the #1 offense. Gotta give him the slight edge over Mikan.

Top Honourable Mention: George Mikan (*edited; previously had voted 3rd, largely on basis of major playoff rising)


Defensive Player of the Year
1. George Mikan - #2 defense in the rs, but they look monstrous in the Finals, too. I still believe Mikan is the single biggest piece in that puzzle. And perhaps it's big-man bias, but I'm skeptical perimeter defenders can match the defensive impact of a big, and perhaps especially in this era of low shooting %.

2. Paul Seymour - I might swap these two I have at #1 and #2, though will go like this for now. Suffice to say I'm really impressed with their #1 defense without a true/traditional big-man anchor on that end. Schayes is shoring up the boards, to be sure, but Seymour plays more minutes than anyone, and has a terrific defensive reputation. Might be the closest thing they have to a true anchor.

3. Mel Hutchins - Somewhat going by reputation, and also noting he's the minutes leader on the 4th-rated [-0.3 rDRTG] team, with no other notable defenders that I'm aware of.

Top HM's that I could be convinced to switch to:
Arnie Risen - presumed anchor of the 3rd-rated defense.
Earl Lloyd - only 30.8 mpg, but had his defense praised by coach Al Cervi (and seems like the only other potential anchor/co-anchor for that #1 defense, other than Schayes, I guess).

[Dr Positivity]

Vote

1. George Mikan - Still don't see anyone who can challenge the two way impact. Good in playoffs on offense.

2. Bob Cousy - His efficient is pretty decent for his volume for a guard (top 20 in league) so when added to by far the most dynamic playmaker we'll say he is the 2nd best player here.

3. Dolph Schayes - Good scoring season at 5th in TS and efficient in playoffs, seems like he has non scoring impact in passing, defense and spacing.

4. Neil Johnston - While there is some concerns about his impact compared to his stats, his individual performance is too good to be much lower here with less pressure taken off him than Macauley.

5. Paul Seymour - Gallatin would be my pick based on regular season but since Seymour had a nice playoffs I'll give him the slight edge, he is a worse scorer than Gallatin but better playmaker to make up for it and arguably best defender at his position.

Offensive player of the year

1. Bob Cousy
2. Neil Johnston
3. Ed Macauley

Defensive player of the year

1. George Mikan
2. Mel Hutchins
3. Nat Clifton

[Dutchball97]

Mikan at 1 and Schayes at 2 seem like pretty obvious picks in another rather meager season for top end talent. Bob Cousy should probably on my ballot somewhere but I'm not entirely sure how harsh I'll be on his play-off run, right now I think he'll either be 3rd or 4th. Paul Seymour is another guy who I'll very likely give a spot on my ballot. 8th in WS in the regular season and 3rd in the play-offs, while playing the most minutes on a team that went to 7 games in the finals is a very solid overall season. The last spot could go a lot of ways. I'm mostly between Wanzer, Gallatin and Sharman.

I'll have to think about my OPOY and DPOY picks but it's looking likely Cousy and Mikan will be extending their respective leads in these categories. Schayes maybe has an argument to make both ballots.

[ZeppelinPage]

Player of the Year
1. George Mikan
2. Dolph Schayes
3. Bob Cousy
4. Harry Gallatin
5. Paul Seymour

It's likely that the Nationals win if not for Schayes' injury. So, I give #1 and #2 to Mikan and Schayes, respectfully. Cousy only improved his play from the previous season--increasing his efficiency and passing better. Unfortunately, the Celtics were suffering with a variety of injuries in the playoffs, and Cousy himself was dealing with a hurt knee and the flu during the EDF against the Nationals. Gallatin had an incredible season, and I would have placed him over Cousy if not for the Celtics' historic season on offense. Gallatin finished 1st team All-NBA, led the regular season and playoffs in rebounding, was efficient as a scorer, and was a great defender to boot.

The last spot comes down to Seymour and Pollard. Pollard played a heavy minutes load (including 47 in game seven of the Finals while Mikan played 37), shot well, and defended great as he always did. George Yardley had this to say about Pollard in the Finals:

"Pollard is at the height of his game and he might like to quit at the top. In my opinion Pollard is the best in the game today. At least he can do more things well. It is a treat to watch him pass as well as shoot."

In the end, I gave the slight edge to Seymour this season. His entire team was injured, including himself, and they still managed to bring the Lakers to 7 games with their backs against the wall. Seymour came up big in the clutch and was a key reason why the Nationals came so close to winning.

Offensive Player of the Year
1. Bob Cousy
2. Neil Johnston
3. George Mikan

Cousy absolutely gets Offensive Player of the Year for me. The Celtics finished with a +5.4 rORtg, which, up to that point, was the greatest offense of all time. Auerbach made adjustments to the offense for this season, promoting more space for Cousy to work the middle and pass off to his cornermen. This allowed Macauley to lead the league in FG% with constant open looks. Adjusted for today, Macauley had the equivalent of a 75 TS%(!) this season. It also resulted in an efficiency jump for Cousy, as his average shot was less contested than ever. Neil Johnston gets the 2nd spot as a result of his offensive performance as the only option on his team. Yes, the Warriors finished towards the bottom in offense, but that team is dreadful in terms of offensive talent, and Johnston still had a fantastic season as a scorer despite that. Johnston was the primary focus of the defense and was still elite offensively. I considered Bill Sharman for this last spot with his playoff performance, but Mikan had so much responsibility to generate offense that I gave the nod to him.

Defensive Player of the Year
1. George Mikan
2. Paul Seymour
3. Mel Hutchins

Tough decision. The Lakers finished with the highest defensive rating in the playoffs, and the Nationals were struggling to score the entire series. I think Mikkelsen certainly has an argument to be here in the top 3 as well, since he was generally considered one of the best defensive big men in the league by now. Hutchins is incredibly valuable and will probably be #1 for DPOY next year, but Seymour's playoff run, with his film really standing out as a disruptor and defender, pushes him ahead for #2 this season.

[AEnigma]

Offensive Player of the Year

1. Bob Cousy
So long as he is the far and away top playmaker in the league, he will dominate OPoY in much the way Mikan has dominated DPoY.

2. Paul Seymour
Initially felt I would be waiting a year to list Seymour on this ballot, but he was one of the higher volume playmakers outside of Cousy, and he was the one leading the team in the Finals with Schayes hampered — and he did so better than positional rival Wanzer. Ability to play significant minutes provides additional value over potential competitors.

3. George Mikan
League’s best postseason scorer and a fairly adept passer for his position. With Johnston still irrelevant, Macauley fading, Schayes injured, and underwhelming results from the Royals, he ends up on this ballot nearly by default — but that is the benefit of being by far the era’s most reliable postseason performer.

Defensive Player of the Year

1. George Mikan
Right back at it with Clifton dropping his minutes and averages. Russell will quickly lap the field in award shares here, but I am curious whether anyone else can catch up to the advantage generated by a 5-year run of near unanimous status as the league’s top defender.

2. Mel Hutchins
Respectable signal improving the Pistons’ defence, although the better signal is the collapse of the Hawks. Heavy minutes load, and his rebounding holds up reasonably well next to Foust.

3. Joe Grabowski
The Warriors were a completely different team around Johnston this year, and while I think the guards deserve credit for the three-point offensive improvement from 1953, I am crediting most of the defensive improvement to Grabowski. No postseason, thanks to the league looking to correct last year’s over-inclusiveness, but that does not prevent him from being a top three contender here.

Player of the Year

1. George Mikan
2. Dolph Schayes
3. Bob Cousy
4. Paul Seymour
5. Harry Gallatin

Mikan and Schayes the runaway MVP contenders in my eyes, and Mikan was the one who maintained en route to yet another title. Schayes was bad (injured) in the Finals, but he was fantastic against the Knicks and Celtics, averaging 24 points per game on 62.6% efficiency! He had a nice supporting cast, but so did Mikan. Three injury games does not erase the eighty-two other games where he was right up there with Mikan.

Cousy stays as the top guard and playmaker. Seymour was the second star of what had been the league’s best team when healthy and valiantly won the Nationals a couple of games against the Lakers despite Schayes’s injury. I am curious about defensive assignments here; Sharman struggled in the first two games against the Nationals, while Cousy struggled in the second two games, so that would be a strong (or otherwise inexcusably terrible) defensive signal if it were confirmed that happened because Seymour switched assignments. And then Gallatin had a fine season — maybe the best of his career — but ultimately his team let him down in the postseason. Johnston is a fine enough pick, but for me I still think the win total is pretty pitiful, especially with Grabowski and George being key starters on the title team two years later.

[trex_8063]

3. Joe Grabowski
The Warriors were a completely different team around Johnston this year, and while I think the guards deserve credit for the three-point offensive improvement from 1953, I am crediting most of the defensive improvement to Grabowski. No postseason, thanks to the league looking to correct last year’s over-inclusiveness, but that does not prevent him from being a top three contender here.

What do we know about Zeke Zawoluk on defense? How much of the improvement could be attributed to him? (edit: or Jack George, for that matter?)


wrt the offensive improvement, the improvements in the backcourt look relatively small to my eye. The addition of Zeke Zawoluk provides a better ancillary scorer than anything the Warriors had the year before (aside from 13 games of Andy Phillip). But perhaps more than either of those additions/changes, was the fact of WHO Grabowski's (and probably Zeke's, to a degree) minutes were replacing; that they relegated Joe Fulks to where he belonged: the bench.

When the guy taking more true shooting attempts per minute than anyone else on the team (yes, even more than Neil Johnston) while shooting about -10% rTS is no longer getting 30 mpg........that's bound to help the offense.

For that matter, perhaps some of the defensive improvement could be attributed to less of Joe Fulks. Not necessarily meant to be an indictment of his defense, but......missed shots mean more transition opportunities for the defense. The '53 Warriors (in spite of Johnston's remarkable plus) were -299.2 TS Add as a team; that improved to -57.4 as a team for '54.
A not insignificant chunk of that was just the mitigating of Joe Fulks, whose -113.2 TS Add in '53 was the worst on either roster......by -33.5 over the next-worst.

[Djoker]

VOTING POST

Player of the Year

1. George Mikan - The last great Mikan season. 1st Team All-NBA. Numbers dropping over the years but still can't have anyone over him. 18.1/14.3/2.4 on 46.6 %TS (+2.4 rTS) then 19.4/13.2/1.9 on 54.3 %TS (+10.1 rTS) in the PS. The most impactful defender in the league on top of that and best player on the championship team and there isn't a strong argument to not have him #1.

2. Dolph Schayes - Great all-around. 1st Team All-NBA. Had a poor Finals so I feel he has no hope of getting the top spot but he still had a great RS followed by a great PS run before the Finals. 17.1/12.1/3.0 on 49.8 %TS (+5.6 rTS) then 16.0/10.5/1.8 on 55.5 %TS (+11.3 rTS) in the PS. Efficiency in the playoffs is fantastic.

3. Bob Cousy - Offensive engine of the #1 offense in the league yet again. 1st Team All-NBA. 19.2/5.5/7.2 on 46.4 %TS (+2.2 rTS) then 21.0/5.3/6.3 on 42.3 %TS (-1.9 rTS). Not loving his playoff efficiency compared to a few other years but he just carried the offense for the entire team so there's only so much I can dock him knowing he had such impact.

4. Neil Johnston - Offensive dynamo and the fact that he's putting up these numbers on a bad team isn't giving me too many reservations because well.. lead scorers on bad teams are usually low in efficiency because they face a ton of defensive attention. Johnston was spectacular in terms of efficiency to say the least. 1st Team All-NBA. Averaged 24.4/11.1/2.8 on 56.3 %TS (+12.1 rTS) which is just bonkers relative to the others in the league. I honestly feel I may actually be underrating him but it's tough to have him higher when he didn't even make the playoffs.

5. Paul Seymour - The #2 guy in Syracuse. Good all-around guard including on the defensive end. 2nd Team All-NBA. Numbers aren't spectacular but he raised his game in the PS.

Offensive Player of the Year

1. Bob Cousy

2. Neil Johnston

3. Ed Macauley

Cousy first for being the best offensive engine in the league then the two monster efficiency scorers.

Defensive Player of the Year

1. George Mikan

2. Paul Seymour

3. Dolph Schayes

Mikan at first is a clear choice once again and Seymour and Schayes at #2/#3 based on anchoring the best defense in the league.

[LA Bird]

Player of the Year
1. Dolph Schayes
2. George Mikan
3. Bob Cousy
4. Neil Johnston
5. Paul Seymour

It feels a bit blasphemous to not pick Mikan #1. But the Lakers lost both the #1 SRS and #1 defense spot this year and Mikan's numbers continue to fall. Combine that with the Lakers still being a top 3 team after his retirement and I don't think it's a guarantee he should go #1 anymore. Schayes had both better individual numbers and team performance when healthy and while I have Seymour ranked slightly ahead of Pollard as the better #2, the Lakers also have Martin, Mikkelsen, Lovellete which looks much stronger than the rest of the Nationals. I understand if people pick Mikan because it's a cleaner season (title, no injured games in postseason) but it's not like we haven't picked someone who was injured and lost in the Finals before at #1. The Finals go to game 7 despite Schayes injury and Mikan was underwhelming in that decisive game.

Cousy with another great helio season at #1 in assists and #2 in scoring on +2.2% TS but his 5-40 FG shooting in the Eastern Finals is an ominous foreshadowing of his pitiful playoffs scoring efficiency in later seasons. Johnston's Warriors still pretty bad at -1.9 SRS but 51 Groza got plenty of high votes with a -2.0 SRS team so I don't see it as a big problem. Could very well have gone with Gallatin at 5 but the Knicks slipped in team rating and Seymour had some big games in the Finals where the Nationals almost toppled the Lakers.

[trex_8063]

.

Just a heads up in case you'd started tallying, I changed my 3rd-ballot choice for OPOY in my original vote post.

[trex_8063]

Player of the Year
1. Dolph Schayes
2. George Mikan
3. Bob Cousy
4. Neil Johnston
5. Paul Seymour

It feels a bit blasphemous to not pick Mikan #1. But the Lakers lost both the #1 SRS and #1 defense spot this year and Mikan's numbers continue to fall. Combine that with the Lakers still being a top 3 team after his retirement and I don't think it's a guarantee he should go #1 anymore. Schayes had both better individual numbers and team performance when healthy and while I have Seymour ranked slightly ahead of Pollard as the better #2, the Lakers also have Martin, Mikkelsen, Lovellete which looks much stronger than the rest of the Nationals. I understand if people pick Mikan because it's a cleaner season (title, no injured games in postseason) but it's not like we haven't picked someone who was injured and lost in the Finals before at #1. The Finals go to game 7 despite Schayes injury and Mikan was underwhelming in that decisive game.

I'd push back just slightly against any sort of definitive statement that Dolph had the better numbers when healthy (I presume you refer to the rs)......

Schayes rs (per 100 estimates): 23.75 pts @ +5.75% rTS, 16.8 reb, 4.1 ast (4.5 pf) in 36.9 mpg. 24.5 PER, .267 WS/48.
Mikan rs (per 100 estimates): 28.4 pts @ +2.39% rTS, 22.3 reb, 3.8 ast (5.8 pf) in 32.8 mpg. 29.0 PER, .258 WS/48.

So I do not agree there is a clear edge [by the individual numbers] to Schayes; it seems completely debatable, depending on which aspects one most values.
And, although he's also commiting more fouls/100, I'd assume (based on size, reputation, and limited video I've seen of both players) that Mikan's the better rim protecter between the two [perhaps by a significant margin].......which has me leaning slightly toward Mikan as the better all-around performer in the rs.
Then the playoffs is not a contest.

wrt the change seen going from '54 to '55, I'd note that Lovellette was a helluva card to have up their sleeve. He was clearly underutilized in the rs (as became apparent in the playoffs, perhaps). He was sort of like Marcin Gortat in Orlando: a clearly starter-level C who was just not getting the playing time because they had a star at that position (and PF, too); except Lovellette was even better than Gortat, relative to the league environment.
We also cannot say for sure whether he improved in his sophomore season.

At any rate, that's who they were able to just plug in for half of Mikan's lost minutes (Clyde goes from 17.4 mpg in '54 to 33.7 in '55 [+16.3]). They also increased the utilization of SF Dick Schnittker in '55, who was a decent scorer, fwiw. They still fell by 6 wins [would by more like 7 in an 82-game schedule] and -1.75 SRS.

Yes, these players were there in '54, too; but you can only floor five guys at a time, and there's only one ball to go around. These were clearly underutilized players in '54 [Lovellette would have started for every other team in the league save maybe the Pistons, and Schnittker would have been a starter for about half the league].

[eminence]

Voting Post

Sorry for not finding the time to share some thoughts on this season, but oh well.

Player of the Year
1. George Mikan
First (and only) year he isn't a clear step up on the field when healthy, but still gets it done when the chips are down. The primary competitors not really leaving a lasting mark makes it easier than it otherwise would've been. Schayes could've had this spot if he was healthy in the finals.

2. Dolph Schayes
Had himself in contention for #1 prior to the injury, which means Mikan takes the top spot over him, but I'm not going to drop him below guys he'd already eliminated.

3. Bob Cousy
His first somewhat rough playoff outing in my eyes, but a comparable all-around season to the ones before. Macauley going down in the playoffs certainly hurt the Celtics chances and likely played a factor in the FG%.

4. Neil Johnston
Gets a couple more NBA level guys and the team jumps up to just bad. I'm somewhere halfway in the 'are Johnston's numbers empty?' debate. Somewhat like Groza before I come down thinking it's at least possible one could build a competitive team with him in a starring role. That leaves him behind the guys that actually did it, but above the guys I see as secondary stars or parts of a larger system.

5. Paul Seymour
Strong #2, stepped up when his #1 was limited, I feel pretty good about this pick. Don't think he's a tier up on a handful of other guys, but it's hard to argue for any of them from an accomplishment perspective this season. Generally a bit over credited on defense and under credited on offense imo, but overall about right.

Offensive Player of the Year
1. Bob Cousy
He could be a bit of a default pick for a bit here. Boston was a solid team and very clearly the top offense. Cousy still running things, though Sharman has really arrived as well.

2. Neil Johnston
Not sold on this one, but the volume/efficiency were there individually and the team offense was meh instead of horrible.

3.Paul Seymour
I'll let Seymour sneak this one over Schayes due to injury, though I'd have Schayes just slightly over him offensively prior to that.

Defensive Player of the Year
1. George Mikan
Have said most of what there is to be said on Mikan it feels like. The lower minutes hurt him a bit, but I think there's still enough there to give him the benefit of the doubt.

2. Dolph Schayes
Nationals primarily got it done on defense, and Schayes was in the middle of it as often as not. Great rebounder.

3. Arnie Risen
One last shout to the old-guard, I don't imagine any more non-Schayes pre-merger guys will be making it onto my lists going forward. With Davies slowing further down the Royals seemed to rely more on their D, this is their last notable season until Oscar settles in.

[Dutchball97]

Player of the Year
1. George Mikan - Mikan saw another pretty significant minutes reduction but per minute he was still as impactful as the 2 seasons prior. Then he stepped up big time in the play-offs with a typically dominant defensive effort alongside a bit of a renaissance on offense. Across the season the only other guy I'd have in contention is Schayes but their respective performances in the finals makes it a tough sell for me to pick him over Mikan.

2. Dolph Schayes - Injuries or not, this was another very strong overall season for Schayes that only falls short at the finish line. Just like Mikan, Schayes impacted the game at an elite level on both ends. I have the top 2 quite a bit ahead of the rest of the field this year as I don't see anyone else really making a case for themselves in the post-season.

3. Bob Cousy - The leader and, by now, the clear best player on the best offensive team in the league by a landslide. Not the most efficient outing in the play-offs but he did step up in minutes played and shooting volume, making him the MPG, PPG and APG leader in the post-season.

4. Paul Seymour - A very good #2 on the team with the best net rating and SRS in the regular season. Seymour is another guy who impacts both ends of the floor as well. The biggest argument for him is how he stepped up in the play-offs with Schayes missing time. The Nationals were still very competitive in the finals and Seymour is probably the biggest part in that.

5. Harry Gallatin - This last spot was pretty much the only one I had to think about who I wanted to pick. Neil Johnston is a name I considered as he was likely the best player in the regular season or at least in the same ballpark as Schayes and Mikan but missing the play-offs is still too much of a black mark to me to consider him having a better season. Bobby Wanzer was in a similar position to Gallatin as the best players on middle of the pack teams but I think Gallatin offered a bit more overall this season when considering both sides of the floor. I also thought about Sharman, though it'd be unfair not to take into account the benefit of playing next to Cousy.

Offensive Player of the Year
1. Bob Cousy
2. George Mikan
3. Dolph Schayes

Cousy is still the clear best offensive player in the league at this point despite having his most inefficient post-season outside of his rookie year. It'll be interesting to see how he'll perform here going forward when Arizin comes back and Pettit enters the scene next season. Mikan had a strong offensive showing in the regular season and then stepped it up even further in the play-offs. Schayes has a very similar story as despite playing less minutes, his efficiency goes up by such a degree that he only averages 1 less PPG than in the regular season.

Defensive Player of the Year
1. George Mikan
2. Mel Hutchins
3. Dolph Schayes

Despite the Lakers not having the best defense in the regular season anymore, they were pretty neck and neck with the Nationals and Royals. In the play-offs the Lakers dominate on defense again, which of course can't be credited to just Mikan alone but I do believe he's still the clear driving force for the Lakers' defense. Schayes has a case to be put higher but it's a bit difficult to determine how much we should credit Seymour with them becoming the best defense in the regular season (and 2nd best in the play-offs. So because of that I put Hutchins ahead of him, as he seems to be a more clear leader on the defensive end for the Pistons (who were a good defense too, 4th in the regular season and 3rd in the play-offs).

[Doctor MJ]

POY:

1. George Mikan (Mpl)
2. Jim Pollard (Mpl)
3. Bob Cousy (Bos)
4. Paul Seymour (Syr)
5. Slater Martin (Mpl)

The older Pollard shines as younger Mikan fades and was the star Game 7 in the finals while also playing much bigger minutes. Still giving Mikan the nod just barely. Also finding a spot for Slater, as he along with Pollard are absolutely vital to the Lakers continuing dynasty.

I'll give Cousy the first non-Laker spot, in no small part because of the weirdness of the Nats having a clear #1 (Schayes) who absolutely isn't the team's most valuable player in the finals when the Nats come so damn close to unseating the Lakers, which will be the most impressive thing these Nats have ever done to this point. Seymour is the guy who serves as rock for the Nats when it's all on the line this year (as well as next year when they win it all).

OPOY
1. Bob Cousy (Bos)
2. Neil Johnston (Phi)
3. Bill Sharman (Bos)

Cousy's an easy call. I can find a spot for Johnston this year, and will give the 3rd spot to Sharman over Macauley based on the playoffs.

DPOY
1. Paul Seymour (Syr)
2. George Mikan (Mpl)
3. Slater Martin (Mpl)

Seymour is the defensive fulcrum of the best defense in the league. Will give the nod to two Lakers for the other spots.

unofficial COY
1. Al Cervi (Syr)
2. John Kundla (Mpl)
3. Les Harrison (Roc)

Giving the nod to Cervi with him almost coaching a team to the title despite injuries. Kundla & Harrison grab other spots as mainstays on the sidelines for strong teams.

[AEnigma]

Votes are tallied. I recorded 10 voters: Djoker, Trex, AEnigma, Eminence, Dutchball97, Dr. Positivity, Doctor MJ, LA Bird, ZeppelinPage, and trelos. LA Bird abstained from both OPoY and DPoY. Please let me know if I seem to have missed or otherwise improperly recorded a vote.

1953-54 Results

(Retro) Offensive Player of the Year — Bob Cousy (3*) (Unanimous)

Code: Select all

Player         1st   2nd   3rd   Points  Shares
1. Bob Cousy    9   0   0    45     1.000
2. Neil Johnston    0   7   0    21     0.467
3. George Mikan   0    1    2     5    0.111
4. Paul Seymour  0    1    1      4     0.089
5. Ed Macauley   0    0    3      3     0.067
6. Bill Sharman   0    0    1      1     0.022
6. Carl Braun   0    0    1      1     0.022
6. Dolph Schayes   0    0    1      1     0.022

(Retro) Defensive Player of the Year — George Mikan (5)

Code: Select all

Player          1st   2nd   3rd   Points  Shares
1. George Mikan   8    1     0     43     0.956
2. Paul Seymour     1    3    1     15    0.333
3. Mel Hutchins   0    3    2     11     0.244
4. Dolph Schayes    0    2    2     8     0.178
5. Nat Clifton    0    0    1      1    0.022
5. Joe Graboski    0    0    1      1    0.022
5. Slater Martin    0    0    1      1    0.022
5. Arnie Risen    0    0    1      1    0.022

Retro Player of the Year — George Mikan (5)

Code: Select all

Player       1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pts  POY Shares
1. George Mikan  9  1  0  0  0   97    0.970
2. Dolph Schayes   1  7  1  0  0   64    0.640
3. Bob Cousy   0  1  8  1  0   50    0.500
4. Neil Johnston   0  0  1  5  0   20    0.200
5. Paul Seymour   0  0  0  3  5   14    0.140
6a. Harry Gallatin   0  0  0  1  4   7    0.070
6b. Jim Pollard   0  1  0  0  0   7    0.070
8. Slater Martin   0  0  0  0  1   1    0.010

1955 thread will open shortly.

[AEnigma]

Seymour finishing above Schayes in both ROPoY and RDPoY but being two or more spots below him on 9/10 RPoY ballots is one of the most interesting results we may ever see.

Congratulations also to Mikan for placing on all three awards in his final real season.

[LA Bird]

I'd push back just slightly against any sort of definitive statement that Dolph had the better numbers when healthy (I presume you refer to the rs)......

Schayes rs (per 100 estimates): 23.75 pts @ +5.75% rTS, 16.8 reb, 4.1 ast (4.5 pf) in 36.9 mpg. 24.5 PER, .267 WS/48.
Mikan rs (per 100 estimates): 28.4 pts @ +2.39% rTS, 22.3 reb, 3.8 ast (5.8 pf) in 32.8 mpg. 29.0 PER, .258 WS/48.

So I do not agree there is a clear edge [by the individual numbers] to Schayes; it seems completely debatable, depending on which aspects one most values.
And, although he's also commiting more fouls/100, I'd assume (based on size, reputation, and limited video I've seen of both players) that Mikan's the better rim protecter between the two [perhaps by a significant margin].......which has me leaning slightly toward Mikan as the better all-around performer in the rs.
Then the playoffs is not a contest.

To be clear, I never said Schayes had a clear edge, merely that he had the edge IMO. Also, not sure why we are using per 100 estimates when both teams played at the same pace and thus, this adjustment only serves to inflate the production of the player who played fewer minutes (Mikan).

In terms of the playoffs, I was referring to the pre-Finals games before Schayes got injured in the last game against the Celtics. Over that stretch, he averaged 24.0 ppg, 16.3 rpg, 62.6% TS vs Mikan's 20.8 ppg, 13.2 rpg, 56.6% TS. If we look game by game, Schayes had 5 straight 20 point games until injury in the 6th game - Mikan hadn't had any 5 consecutive 20+ point games since before the widening of the key. Now obviously Schayes did get hurt (hence my healthy caveat) but by game 7 of the Finals, he was back to playing 41 minutes and had a decent enough scoring performance whereas Mikan laid an egg. I totally understand if people pick Mikan instead but to me, Schayes appeared the better player who still almost managed to eke out a win while playing with a broken wrist on a much weaker team.

wrt the change seen going from '54 to '55, I'd note that Lovellette was a helluva card to have up their sleeve. He was clearly underutilized in the rs (as became apparent in the playoffs, perhaps). He was sort of like Marcin Gortat in Orlando: a clearly starter-level C who was just not getting the playing time because they had a star at that position (and PF, too); except Lovellette was even better than Gortat, relative to the league environment.
We also cannot say for sure whether he improved in his sophomore season.

At any rate, that's who they were able to just plug in for half of Mikan's lost minutes (Clyde goes from 17.4 mpg in '54 to 33.7 in '55 [+16.3]). They also increased the utilization of SF Dick Schnittker in '55, who was a decent scorer, fwiw. They still fell by 6 wins [would by more like 7 in an 82-game schedule] and -1.75 SRS.

Yes, these players were there in '54, too; but you can only floor five guys at a time, and there's only one ball to go around. These were clearly underutilized players in '54 [Lovellette would have started for every other team in the league save maybe the Pistons, and Schnittker would have been a starter for about half the league].

I am well aware of how good Lovellette is. He was the only player ever to win NCAA championship and scoring title in the same year and he also won the NIBL title after taking over Bob Kurland's AAU team. The problem is that if we are using depth as the justification for the lack of SRS dropoff after Mikan's retirement, how do you explain the Lakers having a lower SRS than the Nationals in the first place despite Mikan being the POY, Pollard being at worst the second best #2, Martin and Mikkelsen being strong starters, as well as two additional starter level players off the bench? That is beyond stacked. Other than Schayes/Seymour, who did the Nationals have? You are correct to say Lovellette was under-utilized as Mikan's backup but an under-utilized All Star level player is still far more valuable than a fully-utilized average bench scrub.