Retro POY '72-73 (Voting Complete)

[Sedale Threatt]

Heh. Yeah, in college, I actually did an independent study on The Silmarillion--check it out if you ever have time. It's pretty much straight mythology as opposed to the epic quest setting of LOTR. Good times.

Back to your other point--PJ did a fantastic job translating it onto the big screen. Keep in mind that in the books, Frodo had the Ring and sat around the Shire twiddling his thumbs for seventeen years before getting off of his ass and starting things off. Movies need a sense of urgency, and... the books just didn't have that at first.

I could go on for a while, but this needs a thread of its own...

Yeah, there wasn't a whole lot of motivation, was there? Even after the Nazgul are on their tails they're taking time for breakfast and the like.

That huge time gap is what stood out most to me. Granted, I hadn't read the book for 10 years, but I simply didn't remember that, as well as numerous other little details. I'm having to read some passages two or three times just to let all the references soak in.

It lends credence to some of the documentaries I watched with the films -- from a technical standpoint, Tolkien wasn't really a very good writer. Rather, it's the depth and breadth of the world he created that is his true achievement.

[JordansBulls]

[
No it was not similar to Detroit in 2004. Billups and Wallace WS and PER were pretty much identical in the playoffs while Frazier was heads and shoulder more productive than anyone else on the Knicks.

You know that these "advanced" stats prior 1978 are only ESTIMATED?

And DeBusschere for example was better defensive player than Frazier so it's very possible that overall he was more valuable to the Knicks - and keep in mind that NY offensive schemes limitated Frazier's playmaking ability, so his advantage on the offensive end wasn't as big as many think. Oh, and there's also of course Jerry Lucas. Vey underatted player, maybe even better than DeBusschere.

That is highly debateable.

[lorak]

Well, in 1973 Knicks were top defensive team in the NBA (5th in DRtg). In 1975, when DeBusshere and Lucas (but he played only 22 mpg in 1974) were gone, they were below league average - 11th place. Offensively they were basicly the same. So probably DeBusschere's defensive impact was BIG, bigger than Frazier's.

[semi-sentient]

It seems I've underrated Cowens somewhat, so I'm putting him at #3.

Tiny Archibald moves down to the #5 spot. His numbers are too fantastic to dismiss. It's one of those situations where you have to ask what more could he have done (OK, he could have rebounded better, but he's a 6-1, 150lb guard for crying out loud)?

After reading more about West and seeing how little the Lakers fell off in his absence (thanks ElGee), I think I can safely take him out of the top 5. If he didn't miss any games, that might just be enough to keep him in over Tiny, but as it stands he did miss a decent portion and his minutes were kind of low. I don't like having 2 players in the top 5 that are on the same team unless they both have exceptional seasons, and West wasn't exceptional enough it seems. Wilt certainly was though, but not to a point where I want him above Kareem or Frazier either.

I agree completely with ThaRegul8r regarding Wilt. How can he possibly be considered #1 when he played poorly in the Finals where he was supposed to be the biggest match-up problem for the Knicks? If people knock Kareem for playing relatively poorly against Thurmond, a defensive beast, then Wilt definitely has to be knocked for his poor play against a hobbled Reed. Even more so, I would say.

This is a really tough year. I don't feel comfortable with Kareem at #1, but I don't feel comfortable putting anyone above him either. IMO, Frazier is the only one who has a legit argument over Kareem.

Oh, and some very insightful posts regarding Thurmond in this thread. Good stuff.


PS: Speaking of Lord of the Rings, I'm wearing the One Ring as my engagement ring until my fiancée buys me a new one (it's a fake, faded ring that I bought years ago). I seriously told her that I wanted that for my wedding ring, but she's not having it. Bummer. Maybe she'll surprise me though.



BTW, I've alwasy felt that PJ did about as good a job as possible in translating the books into film. It was perfect, really. There was some stuff I might have liked to see a little more of (Tom Bombadil story), but I can see why stuff like that was left out.

[Sedale Threatt]

Wow, dude, you bought the One Ring. You just out-nerded all of us.

[ElGee]

Some estimated pace-adjusted stats for the contenders:

Code: Select all

            Pts/75  Ast/75  Reb/75  Rel TS%
Tiny        25.0    8.4     2.1     5.7%
Erving*     24.7    3.3     9.4     2.0%
Kareem      23.6    3.9     12.6    8.2%
West        20.8    8.0     3.8     3.5%
Barry       19.0    4.2     7.6     1.0%
Frazier     17.4    4.9     6.0     3.6%
Hondo       17.2    4.8     5.1     0.4%
Cowens      14.9    3.0     11.8   -1.7%
Wilt        9.9     3.3     14.0    19.1%

*ABA


So, following up on Tiny for a bit, if you look at the team performance in 1974 (he misses 47 games) and in 1975, they have a clear dip in 74 in offensive performance and overall production. Then, in 75 -- a 44-38 team with a neutral SRS -- Tiny only takes about 1.6 fewer shots per 75 trips. His assists drop a little, but from a statistical/usage standpoint, it seems like a pretty similar style. The difference in 75? The results weren't as good from Tiny or the team and he wasn't recognized in the same manner as in 73 because of it).

A quick note on West that I haven't seen mentioned (maybe people just don't think he's top 5 anyway?) is his hamstring injury in the Finals, which rendered him fairly weak for the last 3 games of the Finals. He gutted it out, but by all accounts was hobbled by that. It happened pretty late, so I'm always hesitant to "penalize" there, but no one's even mentioned it.

It seems this year IS just as messy as Mufasa played it out to be...

PS Fatal, those box scores are awesome -- keep em coming in future years if you have them on hand.

[TrueLAfan]

Okay...I'm going with

1. Kareem
2. Frazier
3. Archibald
4. Erving
5. Havlicek

The Knicks attacked the Lakers in the smartest way possible...small ball. The Lakers were, in a word, old. West and Wilt had played 10,000 more combined RS and playoff minutes than Garnett and Ray Allen had played last year. Think of what KG and Ray will look in a two more years. The fact that the Knicks went small shouldn't be held against them. It had been their strategy all year; Reed played as much in the playoffs as he did in the RS, and with about the same effectiveness—and the Knicks were a 57 win team. So I'm not buying that the Knicks were anything other than great in 1973. Frazier was the best player on a great team...but I can;'t say with authority that his PS was enough greater to make up for Kareem's better RS. This is also taking into account that Nate Thurmond was a genuinely great player and all-time great defender and held Kareem down in 1973 (although the idea that Kareem got shut down by Nate Thurmond in 1972 is not really very accurate—Kareem only shot 45.4% in the PS against Golden State, but he averaged 30-17-5.5 for the series that his team won by losing the first game and sweeping four in a row after that.)

I've said this in the past; I think there was a strong undercurrent, especially among NBA management and administrators, to push “old fashioned” basketball in the late 60s and (especially) early 1970s. On a surface level, you had a preponderence of Celtics games on TV in the early 1970s—more than the Knicks, more than the Lakers. You had media push for the “quiet” black men (Unseld, Reed) over their “flashy” teammates (Monroe, Frazier). (This was actually replicated in the leadup to Frazier-Ali I...you can't imagine how much Frazier was pushed as a good, establishment fighter, while Ali was the reckless, Muslim counterculture man.) Which is why, on a deeper level, it was simply a type of racism. Sorry, but it was. It didn't just happen in the NBA, and it wasn't all pervasive, but I think there's a definite tilt to the MVP votes from abour 1968 to 1976. And we still feel the aftereffects of that today...there are still lotsd and lots of NBA fans who think Walt Frazier some type of crazy playground player (Frazier was the epitome of non-flashy PG play), and even more that buy into the idea that the ABA was some sort of crazy, no-D league despite having guys like Bobby
Jones, Don Buse, Artis Gilmore, Mel Daniels, Brian Taylor, Mo Lucas, Caldwell Jones, Willie Wise, and Mike Gale in a league half the size of the NBA. The propaganda wasn't just around, it worked.

Which is why I have trouble with Dave Cowens. We are complaining about Kareem's PS numbers, basically because he shot 43%, when Cowens shot 45% in the RS. And it was not an off year for Cowens either; he was a career 46% shooter that didn't get to the line often. I always respect intangibles and non-statical gratness. Except...those Celtics had guys like John Havlicek and Paul Silas and Jo Jo White and Don Chaney and Don Nelson, who were all heady and smart players who had good intangibles. So how much more could Cowens have added? The team was stacked, and won two titles, one of which was essentially a thrown series. Cowens MVP in 1973 is, perhaps, the worst vote of all time...but I think it typifies the thinking of an era.

Back to Kareem and Clyde. Frazier is one of my favorite players and I'm still (clearly) struggling with this. But I think Frazier got shafted in almost every year of MVP voting he was in, so the fact that he wasn't necessarily part of the top 5 in MVP voting is related to what I brought up earlier. And I still don't think he's quite as deserving as Kareem this year. Had this been a year with one or two other strong candidates, I think Kareem would have been lower. But, IMO, that is not the case.

This will be the last year we see Doctor J on these lists, and I wanted to give him number 3 as a goodbye present. And I just couldn't. Tiny played more games and more minutes and was just as good. Those 500 extra minutes give it to the little guy. Nice.

John Havlicek? Over Dave Cowens? Put me in the group that thought of this Celtics team as Hondo's team. And he had a better RS and PS than Cowens.

Incidentally, I wrote a paper on Tolkien in Grad School as well, for my 20th C British Lit. class.

[Sedale Threatt]

All these papers are well and good, but none of you guys are wearing a replica of the One Ring. That takes it to an entirely different level.

Just playing with you, Markus. You never told me you got engaged, by the way. Congratulations.

[semi-sentient]

Just playing with you, Markus. You never told me you got engaged, by the way. Congratulations.

Really? I could have sworn that I mentioned that to you before. I guess I haven't advertised it all that much. We got engaged back in April, so I guess I just failed to mention it last time we met up. We didn't make too big of a deal about it because we're both kind of private, so maybe that's why. Anyway, thanks man. You'll get a chance to meet her (outside of a loud bar/restaurant environment) next time you're up here and we get together for a game.

[Dr Positivity]

Final

1. Frazier - Better in the playoffs than Wilt and Cowens, all around complete game
2. Wilt - More defense, higher efficiency than Cowens. I'm a fan of lowering volume in favor of raising efficiency. Think these low FGA guys might get underrated compared to a higher volume at a decent efficiency.
3. Cowens - MVP, got outplayed by Frazier when it matters, not as much juice on either end as Wilt. I like ronnymac's "most valuable to his team, but lesser in a vacuum" reasoning
4. West - Think he's as good a player as 2010 Kobe at this point. 23/9/4, elite d, and as much "experience smarts" as anyone. But missed some games, had finals injury. Otherwise in contention for #2
5. Kareem - Brutal 1st rd. playoff series, but impact in regular season is enough for #5, when guys like Erving and Tiny can't guarantee a playoff spot.

[Optimism Prime]

Man--this year reminds me of the 09-10 discussion. I don't want to put Kareem first because of his playoffs, but... I can't make a case for anyone else over him. The rest of the field is older players and guys on great teams. Damn near impossible to rank, but this is what I ended up with:

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Dave Cowens
3. Walt Frazier
4. Jerry West
5. Nate Archibald

HM: Wilt Chamberlain

And continuing the LOTR OTness: https://docs.google.com/document/edit?i ... VkgA&hl=en There's the paper I wrote in college. Enjoy, fellow nerds.

[TrueLAfan]

^^Nice paper. You are, indeed, on a horse, dude.

[Optimism Prime]

^^Nice paper. You are, indeed, on a horse, dude.

Thanks. I keep thinking about going back and re-writing it. I feel like I could do a better job on it now that I'm out of college. The gf says she wants to read Silmarillion and LOTR when winter rolls around... maybe I'll take another crack at it then.

[ronnymac2]

Hmmm...Regulator reminded me of something about Mr. Chamberlain that I don't like. I was wrong. Wilt won't be number one.

Damn, this is pretty tough. West, Erving, Cowens, Frazier, Archibald, Wilt, KAJ, Kangaroo.....

Wilt over Cowens. Despite Wilt not having the ability to annhilate NY's frontcourt the way he should have (for whatever reason, be it decreased skillset or no killer instinct to kick a player who has no business playing him hurt), I still think Wilt is the superior player to Cowens. Close though.

Frazier over Cowens as well. They are pretty even, but I don't buy Dave's MVP, and Frazier's clutch play throughout the playoffs and being the lead guy on a title team (albeit, a balanced one) give him the tiebreaker.

Julius NEEDS to be there. He was awesome. Team sucked. That's fine by me. Can he get over Wilt and Frazier? Not sure. He can go over Cowens though.

Kareem.....I don't think his injury was THAT big a deal. I think he was just defended well by an amazing defender. He wasn't absolutely 100%, but I don't think the injury was serious enough that THAT was the reason he struggled. He is clearly the best player on the planet at this point in time. He's looking like number one.

I'll take Tiny over Cunningham. Cunningham was a beast though.

Logo was great this year, though clearly in decline. Not his best year. Not sure if he's enough of an offensive constant at this point. I may take Wilt over him. I'll take Walt over him due to tiebreakers.

Damn, this is REALLY tough. Frazier took advantage of his situation, Wilt failed to do so.......I'll put Clyde over Stilt. I'll take Julius over Jerry and Nate.

So KAJ/Walt/Wilt/Erving.....Nate vs. West. A lightning-in-a-bottle, historical season vs. the experienced guy who is just plain awesome. I'll actually take Nate. Weird things happened to West this year. I'll leave him out.


Final Rankings:

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Walt Frazier
Wilt Chamberlain
Julius Erving
Nate Archibald

Perennial HM: Wise and Maravich

HM: Thurmond, Cowens, Cunningham, Hondo

[drza]

Travelling, grossly under-researching this year. Pretty much just going off the discussion, without any discussion unless this is still going when I get back.

1) Kareem - havent's seen a better candidate yet.
2) Wilt - Dominant defensive big at this stage of his career.
3) Frazier - Have never bought him as much as many on here, but ...actually, had him 4th but switching him to 3rd based on this thread.
4) Doc - great player on bad team.
5) Cowens - TrueLA's post almost got Cowens kicked completely out of the top 5, but not quite enough research for me to justify it. If I was on my home turf for this vote, would likely have ended up as an HM

[shawngoat23]

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Walt Frazier
3. Nate Archibald
4. Billy Cunningham
5. Julius Erving

HM: Wilt Chamberlain, Dave Cowens, John Havlicek

I'm really not sure of how I want to vote for this season, beyond the fact that Kareem and Clyde are my top two picks. I'm not too sure of the order, and I think Frazier has a compelling case for #1, but in the end, Kareem was too dominant over the course of the regular season, and his playoff performance, while bad by his own standards, are still quite decent.

Frazier gets the nod at my #2 spot because I associate him with being the heart and soul of the championship Knicks team.

I'm giving some love to Tiny Archibald for an amazing statistical feat, even if he was on a bad team that didn't really win too many games. That's something I rarely do.

I feel that Julius Erving deserves to be in the top 5, but that Billy Cunningham deserves a spot over him this year for putting up comparable statistics as well as winning the ABA MVP and leading his team to the best record in the league. Also, note how bad the Sixers were in his absence.

Honorable mention goes to Wilt, Cowens, and Havlicek, great players whose teams did quite well this year. They could all easily make my top 5, but when I sat down to write this post, these are the five names I chose.

[ElGee]

I'm having reservations about Wilt Chamberlain. I'm generally high on his 72 and 73 seasons, but this year his scoring is soooo low. Now, that wouldn't really be an issue if he could score more and just didn't, but he became infatuated with setting the FG% record, and stopped shooting everything unless it was basically a layup or dunk.

Even that wouldn't be a deal-breaker, except that in the NBA FInals, when West hurt his hamstring and Chamberlain was needed to shoulder a larger offensive role, he did this:

G3: 5 pts (2-4, 1-5) 5 ast
G4: 13 pts (4-8. 5-7) 5 ast
G5: 23 pts (9-16, 5-14) 3 ast

That, against a "small ball" team. It could be argued that his playoffs, offensively, were quite neutral/useless. He averaged 10 ppg on .556 TS%. His FGA's in the playoffs actually declined to 6.8 per game, despite increasing his minutes to 47 mpg. The whole thing is a little Ben Wallace-esque.

Yes, I know even at his age Chamerlain has some offensive game (as evidenced by G5, I imagine). But if the argument is he played a role within a system, then shouldn't we see better results than these when he's called upon? Shouldn't he be able to step up in bigger moments like we see other scorers over the years on balanced teams?

[ThaRegul8r]

I'm having reservations about Wilt Chamberlain. I'm generally high on his 72 and 73 seasons, but this year his scoring is soooo low. Now, that wouldn't really be an issue if he could score more and just didn't, but he became infatuated with setting the FG% record, and stopped shooting everything unless it was basically a layup or dunk.

March 28, 1973, Chamberlain didn’t attempt a shot or take a single free throw while playing 46 minutes in an 85-84 loss to Milwaukee. “Coach Bill Sharman, when asked why Wilt didn’t shoot, said, ‘I don’t know why. You will have to ask him. That really hurt, him not shooting’ ” (St. Petersburg Times, March 29, 1973). “Wilt Chamberlain, who entered the game with 24 successful field goal attempts in a row, kept the streak alive in an unconventional fashion. He took no shots at all” (The Milwaukee Journal, March 28, 1973). The Bucks finished their regular season winning 14 straight, setting an NBA record, and took a half-game lead over the Lakers in the race for best record in the Western Conference, homecourt advantage and $10,000 in playoff money. Kareem called it “our biggest win of the year.” The Lakers would need a win over Golden State in the last game of the regular season to finish 60-22 and force a special playoff with the Bucks to determine the best record in the Western Conference.

I don't like this trend of not doing what it takes to win a game for whatever reason. And you can see, the not shooting when his team needed it wasn't just Game 7 of the '68 Finals. There are other instance that can be found.

Abdul-Jabbar, once he had recovered from the surprise of learning that Chamberlain had intended no offensive thrusts at all, wasn’t bad either. He suffered through an 0 for 7 shooting performance in the second quarter, but this was the sort of game that permitted such lapses.

And it was his shot — a 20-foot jump shot from the free throw area, no less, with Chamberlain waiting stolidly under the basket — that turned out to be the one that won the game.

Even that wouldn't be a deal-breaker, except that in the NBA FInals, when West hurt his hamstring and Chamberlain was needed to shoulder a larger offensive role, he did this:

G3: 5 pts (2-4, 1-5) 5 ast
G4: 13 pts (4-8. 5-7) 5 ast
G5: 23 pts (9-16, 5-14) 3 ast

That, against a "small ball" team. It could be argued that his playoffs, offensively, were quite neutral/useless. He averaged 10 ppg on .556 TS%. His FGA's in the playoffs actually declined to 6.8 per game, despite increasing his minutes to 47 mpg. The whole thing is a little Ben Wallace-esque.

Yes, I know even at his age Chamerlain has some offensive game (as evidenced by G5, I imagine). But if the argument is he played a role within a system, then shouldn't we see better results than these when he's called upon? Shouldn't he be able to step up in bigger moments like we see other scorers over the years on balanced teams?

And Game 5 in the series against Chicago, Chamberlain scored 21 on 8-for-11 shooting after getting into an altercation with Jerry Sloan the previous game.

CHICAGO (AP) — The Chicago Bulls made the mistake of annoying Wilt Chamberlain into using the basket instead of just guarding it.

Big Wilt, who had averaged only seven points in the first four games in of the Western Conference semifinals, stuffed 8 of 11 shots and contributed 21 points and 29 rebounds to the Lakers’ 123-102 conquest of the Bulls in Los Angeles Tuesday night.

Chamberlain got irked midway in the game when Chicago’s Jerry Sloan, some 80 pounds more diminutive, challenged the Laker giant into an exchange of words and angry words.

Until his fifth game, Chamberlain had been averaging only six shots per game.

So he could score if someone made him mad, but not when the team needs it to win? I just have a problem with that.

[Manuel Calavera]

But he wasn't a scorer, he played the role he was supposed to play and was able to carry his team to the finals. They lost, but they lost to a better team. West was injured sure but really, what are people advocating for? For Chamberlain to score more? Why should he? He'd be going against everything that had made his team successful during the regular season and the playoffs. I really think the people that are arguing this ask yourself if you would want your player to completely do the opposite of what the coach (HOF coach Bill Sharman) wanted him to do.

[ThaRegul8r]

But he wasn't a scorer, he played the role he was supposed to play and was able to carry his team to the finals.

He's supposed to do what the team needs to win. Other great players have done it.

They lost, but they lost to a better team.

The Lakers were the favorites. Chamberlain was a big reason why.

West was injured sure but really, what are people advocating for?

To do what needs to be done in order for the team to win.

For Chamberlain to score more? Why should he?

Um... to win?

He'd be going against everything that had made his team successful during the regular season and the playoffs.

See above post. He did this before in the regular season as well.

I really think the people that are arguing this ask yourself if you would want your player to completely do the opposite of what the coach (HOF coach Bill Sharman) wanted him to do.

See what Bill Sharman said in the above post in the quoted incident. And you DO WHAT'S NEEDED TO WIN. Is that so hard? Other players have done it. Just look at this year's NBA Finals. Look at what Ron Artest did in Game 7. The thing is... Artest isn't known for that. But he stepped up because it was what was needed for the Lakers to win. He didn't say, "Well, during the regular season I did this, so I'm not going to go against that." And this is Ron Artest, not the caliber of player we're discussing. Great players and read the situation and do what's necessary.

EDIT: And seeing how in the very next season we're about to discuss, Wilt averaged 14.8 points a game, but upped his scoring in the Finals with West having the worst postseason of his career because it was what was needed for the team to win, that doesn't fly. In 1967 also, Philadelphia won with Wilt doing what was needed for the team to win, scoring when necessary and rebounding, passing and playing defense when it wasn't. Why go against what won championships?