Retro Player of the Year Project

[Manuel Calavera]

Kevin Love would be selling concessions in a 8 team league. In a 8 team league theres only 96 NBA players while today we have 150 starters. An 8 team league is every current teams top 3 players. So if your the 2nd best player on the Lakers your a 6th man in a 8 team league. If your the 3rd best player on the Bulls your a 12th man.

I think this is the crux of the disagreement. One side is arguing that the distribution/range of talent may be similar now to what it was in the 50s, but the pool of players is much larger and there are also more teams in which to place those players. The other side seems to be arguing that, essentially, only the 96 best players from this current league would have played in the 60s and that the rest of the league is made up of guys that wouldn't have made the cut back in the day.

I'm arguing the first part. I don't agree with Warspite, but I'm not on the opposite side there either. The fact is I don't know if the distribution of talent is the same as it was back then, and I've never been convinced either way although I've kept an open mind. An interesting point I've heard in prior debates was that the population ages 19-45 is roughly equal (or lower)to what it was in the 1970s-1980s, at least in the United States. That doesn't give much credibility that more people are playing basketball now, or similar arguments. That's just an example though, and I've never seen those types of points explored because too often arguments are muddled by people that stick to their biases.

Anyway, this argument started because someone thought they should split up the shares to compensate for players playing today. There have been points being brought up that I have a problem with so I'll list them here (and try not to misconstrue them):

1. Because there's more financial incentive today more players join the league.

This is only true if we're talking about roleplayers and journeymen (and I'm not totally convinced that was a factor in the late 50's to 60's basketball), but this doesn't apply to the stars because they were getting paid much more than the average college grad. Because this project only concerns the top 5 players (who are all stars) this shouldn't matter.

2. If we're to assume that the talent distribution has remained constant then there would be 3 times the amount of "great" players than there are today.

This is a much more valid point than the previous one, but I'm not convinced of it either. For one, I don't know if the assumption that the talent distribution has remained constant. A lot of factors go into that that probably haven't remained constant over the years. True, the influx of international players has risen steadily and it's possible that it could have affected the top 5 player votes. But we're talking maybe a few players here, guys like Hakeem and Ewing would have went to the NBA. I'm not sure about Nash, but probably him too. So we're talking what, Dirk? Yao? There's not a whole lot of international players that received top 5 votes. I don't know, this is probably something that should be explored more. I don't like talking about talent distribution anyway because it makes me think of NBA 2k/Live/Elite where players are graded by scores of 1 to 100. Like you could summarize someone like Jerry West by attaching a number to him, and then saying based on probability if we took 1 million basketball players one of them would have the same skill level as West. It just seems like there's something wrong with that.

[JordansBulls]

If we were voting on the top 50 players each season then you'd probably need compensation since the 50th best player in 1960 was likely on the bench while the 50th best player today is a starter and likely the second best player on his team but because we only ever voted on 5 there really isn't any problem.

Agreed on this point. It is easier to stand out with less people than with more people in it. If you are in a university class that has 50 students and you finish top 5 that would be good. But imagine being in a class with 400 students and you are top 5, that would be outstanding. The same applies in the league in the 50's/60's vs 80's, 90's, 00's.

This is why you see someone like Pettit with more votes than someone like Hakeem or Kobe. It is simply easier to finish higher with less quality players in the league.

[Optimism Prime]

If we were voting on the top 50 players each season then you'd probably need compensation since the 50th best player in 1960 was likely on the bench while the 50th best player today is a starter and likely the second best player on his team but because we only ever voted on 5 there really isn't any problem.

Agreed on this point. It is easier to stand out with less people than with more people in it. If you are in a university class that has 50 students and you finish top 5 that would be good. But imagine being in a class with 400 students and you are top 5, that would be outstanding. The same applies in the league in the 50's/60's vs 80's, 90's, 00's.

This is why you see someone like Pettit with more votes than someone like Hakeem or Kobe. It is simply easier to finish higher with less quality players in the league.

And with fewer voters, for that matter.

[Manuel Calavera]

If we were voting on the top 50 players each season then you'd probably need compensation since the 50th best player in 1960 was likely on the bench while the 50th best player today is a starter and likely the second best player on his team but because we only ever voted on 5 there really isn't any problem.

Agreed on this point. It is easier to stand out with less people than with more people in it. If you are in a university class that has 50 students and you finish top 5 that would be good. But imagine being in a class with 400 students and you are top 5, that would be outstanding. The same applies in the league in the 50's/60's vs 80's, 90's, 00's.

This is why you see someone like Pettit with more votes than someone like Hakeem or Kobe. It is simply easier to finish higher with less quality players in the league.

I don't think I've ever seen someone say "I agree with you" then reiterate what he was reading only to post the exact opposite of what the person was originally trying to argue. JB you will always be my favorite poster .

[ronnymac2]

If we were voting on the top 50 players each season then you'd probably need compensation since the 50th best player in 1960 was likely on the bench while the 50th best player today is a starter and likely the second best player on his team but because we only ever voted on 5 there really isn't any problem.

Agreed on this point. It is easier to stand out with less people than with more people in it. If you are in a university class that has 50 students and you finish top 5 that would be good. But imagine being in a class with 400 students and you are top 5, that would be outstanding. The same applies in the league in the 50's/60's vs 80's, 90's, 00's.

This is why you see someone like Pettit with more votes than someone like Hakeem or Kobe. It is simply easier to finish higher with less quality players in the league.

I don't think I've ever seen someone say "I agree with you" then reiterate what he was reading only to post the exact opposite of what the person was originally trying to argue. JB you will always be my favorite poster .

[TrueLAfan]

I wrote a piece a couple of years ago comparing the “average” players by position at 5 year intervals from the very early 1960s to the present. The general conclusion was—not a whole lot of difference. I personally think there are a lot more good players now than there has ever been—but expansion has, for all intents and purposes, wiped that out in terms of overall play.

What’s important for this project is that the top 5 players are not average or typical, even within their already small group of players that have made it to the NBA. They are outliers among outliers. I think this is what sometimes confuses people. Extending that argument out, as Blll James notes, is to say that Topeka, Kansas is three times bigger than 17th century London…so there are three Shakespeares, three Christopehr Marlowes, and three Ben Jonsons in Topeka today. Which isn’t true. The number of truly super elite players certainly rises and falls…but I don't think population totals have a lot to do with it. That is not true, however, as you move down the list of players.

As far as I’m concerned, there’s little to no difference is the ultra elite between any time period from, say the early 1960s forward. The top few players from at least 1965 are going to be awesome. The weight of numbers has an increasing effect after that as you start to move toward “average” ballplayers. The #40 player in the NBA today is an outstanding ballplayer. The #40 player in the NBA in 1965 was a little better than average but that’s about it. But it was a nine team league in 1965…so the #40 player shouldn’t have been much more than a little better than average. If nine players carried 13 men on their roster, the #40 player is 40th out of 117…probably the fourth or fifth best starter on his team. Today, the #40 player could easily be a max player…the second best player on a very good team.

btw...my overall vote looks a lot like Optimism Prime's, which makes me think I wasn't wildly far off. Cool spreadsheet too.

[Manuel Calavera]

What’s important for this project is that the top 5 players are not average or typical, even within their already small group of players that have made it to the NBA. They are outliers among outliers. I think this is what sometimes confuses people. Extending that argument out, as Blll James notes, is to say that Topeka, Kansas is three times bigger than 17th century London…so there are three Shakespeares, three Christopehr Marlowes, and three Ben Jonsons in Topeka today. Which isn’t true. The number of truly super elite players certainly rises and falls…but I don't think population totals have a lot to do with it. That is not true, however, as you move down the list of players.

This is part of what I was trying to get at earlier.

Part of the reason I almost find it offensive that a person could use the population argument is that they are trying to quantify what makes a person like Sir Isaac Newton (as an example since I'm not familiar enough with the three names you brought up) so special and place him on a scale of probabilities, like if you had 10 billion children you could determine how many of them would grow up to be outliers like Newton.

[Optimism Prime]

Yeah--the top of my rankings is pretty similar to the project as a whole... except Shaq bumped Bird out of the top 6 and Duncan was at #8--but for the RPOY rankings, Duncan was in the top 6.

Hakeem didn't make my top 10, which I find surprising. I had him ranked higher than RPOY, which I don't.

One other thing I plan to change at some point is to highlight the "active" years of a player--maybe even their prime--and see who scored the best that way. Russell will still probably be #1, as he was in my top five every year he played. Miraculous.

Also, I was surprised at how much love Kareem got from me. I knew he was good, but I didn't know HOW good he was until I did the research. Same with Russell, albeit to a different degree. I see MJ, Wilt, Russ, and Kareem as the four contenders for GOAT, but had never really broken Kareem down. Jordan had winning in the modern era, Russ had the rings, Wilt had the stats.... Kareem, I guess, had a long prime, and continued to function after that.

The other player that really surprised me was Bob McAdoo. I'd heard next to nothing about the guy before this project (other than what I read in the Book of Basketball), but there he is ahead of Nash, Barkley, and Robinson in my rankings...

I have to admit I'm kind of glad that Pettit/Johnston/Schayes/etc didn't crack the top of my rankings. Pettit was #18, but would I rather have him than Wade or Lebron? Nope.

Rick Barry went seven years in between votes from me (5th in '67, 2nd in '75).

I ranked 66 players over the course of this project; I think I have a solid basis for which to construct a personal top-100 at some point. Won't correlate exactly to this project, because Stockton never placed in my rankings, and I know he's a top-100 player in my book.

Just some rambles... Let me echo everyone else who's said this project has been an absolute blast, and thank all those that put in tons of time researching and posting articles.

[drza]

As far as I’m concerned, there’s little to no difference is the ultra elite between any time period from, say the early 1960s forward. The top few players from at least 1965 are going to be awesome. The weight of numbers has an increasing effect after that as you start to move toward “average” ballplayers. The #40 player in the NBA today is an outstanding ballplayer. The #40 player in the NBA in 1965 was a little better than average but that’s about it. But it was a nine team league in 1965…so the #40 player shouldn’t have been much more than a little better than average. If nine players carried 13 men on their roster, the #40 player is 40th out of 117…probably the fourth or fifth best starter on his team. Today, the #40 player could easily be a max player…the second best player on a very good team.

btw...my overall vote looks a lot like Optimism Prime's, which makes me think I wasn't wildly far off. Cool spreadsheet too.

I think this is actually a key factor, and something to consider: opportunity. Because while the cream rises to the top, it's also true that once a team builds around their superstar they are unlikely to change-up and give someone else the central role. And this is especially true when there are fewer "leading man" roles out there.

For instance, we went through a several-year stretch where Pettit was an MVP candidate in the regular season but Hagan blew his doors off in the postseason. But it was Pettit's team...he was there first, it was built around him, he got the accolades... and he generally got the vote in our project. But who's to say that they weren't a Dirk/Nash situation, where if Hagan were given his own team he could have been beating Pettit out some of those seasons? Conversely, we got to see what West and Wilt looked like alone, but what if we hadn't? What if West got drafted to Wilt's team, and they stayed on the same team for their careers...would he have gotten so much love and even won a vote of his own? Or would he have, conversely, been Hagan another Hagan, a second fiddle statistically who just happened to explode in the playoffs every year?

The smaller league not only concentrated the talent that was there, but it also led to fewer leading man opportunities. Each year the vote degenerated to a large degree to simply, who were the top-4 teams (cut out half the league), then look at who the leading man was on those 4 teams and then add in one or two either "sidekicks" or outlier producers on lesser teams. This was essentially the template for the 8-team years. As such (in addition to the other factors like overall talent level and/or voter non-witnesses), it's not surprising to me that the same players got the votes year after year.

[Doctor MJ]

I think this is actually a key factor, and something to consider: opportunity. Because while the cream rises to the top, it's also true that once a team builds around their superstar they are unlikely to change-up and give someone else the central role. And this is especially true when there are fewer "leading man" roles out there.

This is a really great point.

[#1 pick]

Part of it is that Bird's game is so much prettier you can see his basketball genius on the court by the way he plays while Duncan plays perfectly but not in a way you think "damn this guy is amazing has anyone else ever played at this level?"

Not to mention Bird has all the stories and clutch moments while with Duncan it's "he had 25/15/7/6 in game 6 of the finals" and when you actually watch the game it's just hook shots and passing out of the double to obviously open shooters. Not to downplay Duncan's passing ability he has good vision and will find cutters and shooters but Bird is one of those players that makes passes that aren't there. No look bounce pass between two defenders to Mchale who's wide open under the basket. Even when you see it you don't believe it happened and it actually takes time to sink in holy **** he actually did that.

It's more an aesthetic observation but I don't its totally devoid of on-court impact

I disagree, I think you saw genius, I didn't. I never seen Bird on Duncan's level. I see Duncan as tier 1 of all time elite players. Never seen that with Bird for me. Since this is more statistical. I will leave my peace at the door but if your going to say yours, I will objected.

[laronprofit9]

I don't get how people can say Kobe wasn't close to the best player in the league in 2008. He was the MVP that season. That award alone by title, should give some merit to Kobe having a very good case for best player in the league. Plus great playoff series:

TS% = Points / (2 * FGA + FTA * 0.44) Note: Will bold TS%, not for emphasis, but to be able easily differentiate from formula.

2008 1st Round Playoffs Kobe Bryant vs Denver Nuggets
33.5 ppg 5.3 rpg 6.3 apg 50%fg 33%3P 74%FT 59%TS = 134/(2*(96+38*0.44))

2008 2nd Round Playoffs Kobe Bryant vs Utah Jazz
33.2 ppg 7.0 rpg 7.2 apg 49%fg 21%3P 83%FT 62%TS = 199/(2*(116+96*0.44))

2008 3rd Round Playoffs Kobe Bryant vs San Antonio Spurs
29.2 ppg 5.6 rpg 3.8 apg 53%fg 33%3P 91%FT 58%TS = 146/(2*(120+11*0.44))

Kobe's series against the Spurs that year was phenomenal. Considering how poorly Pau Gasol performed in that series.

2008 3rd Round Playoffs Pau Gasol vs San Antonio Spurs
13.2 ppg 9.6 rpg 3.6 apg 45%fg 0%3P 73%FT 47%TS = 66/(2*(65+11*0.44))

People always mention how poorly Kobe played in the 2008 Finals. It wasn't up to par with the rest of the series he played earlier, but it wasn't that bad.

2008 NBA Finals Kobe Bryant vs Boston Celtics
25.7 ppg 4.7 rpg 5.0 apg 41%fg 32%3P 80%FT 50%TS = 154/(2*(131+49*0.44))

Overall 2008 Playoff Numbers for Kobe Bryant
30.1 ppg 5.7 rpg 5.6 apg 48%fg 30%3P 81%FT 58%TS = 633/(2*(463+194*0.44))

Kobe has a damn good case for being the best player in the league that season.
1. Kobe seeded #1 in the WC with higher W-L record over Paul.
2. Kobe got further in the playoffs than Paul.
3. Kobe beat the Spurs with Pau Gasol only averaging 13.2ppg on 45%FG and 47%TS(Very poor percentages for a big man). Kobe averaged 29.2ppg on 53%FG and 58%TS. Best Player in the series outplaying Gasol, Duncan, Parker, and Ginobli.
4. Kobe only had Gasol for 27 games.
5. Paul had David West for 76 games.
6. Kobe won MVP, that is an argument for best player in the league.
7.Kobe 1st Team All-NBA
8.Kobe 1st Team All-Defense
9.Out of the 2008, 2009, and 2010 Lakers. The 2008 Lakers were easily the weakest supporting cast that Kobe led to the Finals.
10.Kobe beat 3 50+ win teams to get to the Finals, one of the most impressive individual led runs by a perimeter player of the decade. (Sorry to use this argument, but putting this into perspective, Lebron has only beaten 1 50+ win team in the playoffs for his entire career).
11.Lebron's Cavs were only 45-37 this season. Kobe's team had 12 more wins at 57.
12. Kobe played better than Lebron in the playoffs:

2008 1st Round Playoffs Kobe Bryant vs Denver Nuggets
33.5 ppg 5.3 rpg 6.3 apg 50%fg 33%3P 74%FT
2008 2nd Round Playoffs Kobe Bryant vs Utah Jazz
33.2 ppg 7.0 rpg 7.2 apg 49%fg 21%3P 83%FT
2008 3rd Round Playoffs Kobe Bryant vs San Antonio Spurs
29.2 ppg 5.6 rpg 3.8 apg 53%fg 33%3P 91%FT

13. Lebron played equally as bad or worse than Kobe did against the Celtics. Yes Lebron scored 47 points in game 7, but shot 2/18 with 10 To's in game 1.
Lebron shot 35%fg(48%TS) 5.3 TO's/G
Kobe shot 41%fg(50%TS) 3.8 TO's/G

14.Kevin Garnett had the best supporting cast in the league that year. He didn't win Finals MVP over his teammate Paul Pierce. He missed 11 games that season, and the Celtics went 9-2 over that span while he was gone.

I am not saying Kobe is the clear choice. Garnett, Lebron, and CP3 are good choices as well. But they're not clear either. They all have strong arguments, and I don't have a problem with someone picking another player than Kobe. But to say its clearly Lebron or CP3 is just asinine.

But to me I pick Kobe. In terms of overall individual awards, individual success, team success, and improvement(leadership). He had most well-rounded season considering all of those out of the 4 players.

[An Unbiased Fan]

^^
I would also add that Bynum missed the end of the RS, and the playoffs, which is perhaps the only reason he didn't complete a MVP/Finals MVP season.

But if I remember correctlly, the argument used against him was more about PER, and all-around numbers, trumping team success. I do wonder how many of those same voters will view 2011, with 2 of the Top 3-4 players being on the same team, and the likely dropoff in the very stats that were used against Kobe in the late 00's.

[Optimism Prime]

Aah, the regular season, when a young man's fancy lightly turns to thoughts of how underrated Kobe Bryant is.

Never mind the other 45 years of the project, guys, let's just focus on how Kobe got the shaft.

[Warspite]

As far as I’m concerned, there’s little to no difference is the ultra elite between any time period from, say the early 1960s forward. The top few players from at least 1965 are going to be awesome. The weight of numbers has an increasing effect after that as you start to move toward “average” ballplayers. The #40 player in the NBA today is an outstanding ballplayer. The #40 player in the NBA in 1965 was a little better than average but that’s about it. But it was a nine team league in 1965…so the #40 player shouldn’t have been much more than a little better than average. If nine players carried 13 men on their roster, the #40 player is 40th out of 117…probably the fourth or fifth best starter on his team. Today, the #40 player could easily be a max player…the second best player on a very good team.

btw...my overall vote looks a lot like Optimism Prime's, which makes me think I wasn't wildly far off. Cool spreadsheet too.

I think this is actually a key factor, and something to consider: opportunity. Because while the cream rises to the top, it's also true that once a team builds around their superstar they are unlikely to change-up and give someone else the central role. And this is especially true when there are fewer "leading man" roles out there.

For instance, we went through a several-year stretch where Pettit was an MVP candidate in the regular season but Hagan blew his doors off in the postseason. But it was Pettit's team...he was there first, it was built around him, he got the accolades... and he generally got the vote in our project. But who's to say that they weren't a Dirk/Nash situation, where if Hagan were given his own team he could have been beating Pettit out some of those seasons? Conversely, we got to see what West and Wilt looked like alone, but what if we hadn't? What if West got drafted to Wilt's team, and they stayed on the same team for their careers...would he have gotten so much love and even won a vote of his own? Or would he have, conversely, been Hagan another Hagan, a second fiddle statistically who just happened to explode in the playoffs every year?

The smaller league not only concentrated the talent that was there, but it also led to fewer leading man opportunities. Each year the vote degenerated to a large degree to simply, who were the top-4 teams (cut out half the league), then look at who the leading man was on those 4 teams and then add in one or two either "sidekicks" or outlier producers on lesser teams. This was essentially the template for the 8-team years. As such (in addition to the other factors like overall talent level and/or voter non-witnesses), it's not surprising to me that the same players got the votes year after year.

+1 Simply an awsome post.

However those that want to argue population actualy have a bad argument from the mid 60s to 1980. The greatest population group of alltime (baby boomers) were 20-35 yrs old at this time. Theres never been a collection of young men in the world than in this time period. If there are more people in the USA who are in there 20s than in the 1960s why is Social Security going broke?

[Doctor MJ]

+1 Simply an awsome post.

However those that want to argue population actualy have a bad argument from the mid 60s to 1980. The greatest population group of alltime (baby boomers) were 20-35 yrs old at this time. Theres never been a collection of young men in the world than in this time period. If there are more people in the USA who are in there 20s than in the 1960s why is Social Security going broke?

This is absolutely a good thing to bring up and consider. Here's the thing though: The generation before the baby boomers was the depression babies. While the baby boomers are the largest generation because people were full of, eh, enthusiasm after World War II, the depression baby generation was the smallest because people were too poor to support families.

There have been a variety of analyses on how much of an advantage this proved to be for depression babies in the economy in general, as they came of age with a mega-boom of an economy and very little competition getting their foot in the door.

Now let's really look at the chronology here. Baby boomers began in the late 40s, which means they really didn't become old enough to really start affecting the NBA as players until around 1970. The Big 5 of the 60s? All depression babies.

What generational demographics actually tell us, is that anyone who got to play the bulk of their career before the 1970s had an advantage because of lack of competition. Now, honestly I don't know how big of a deal that is. I think it's quite possible that that advantage was minor compared to the fact that when depression babies grew up, there was no hugely successful basketball league, and thus the number of people who really focused on developing those skills was probably a lot smaller than what happened in the baby boomer generation.

Now with all that said. When we talk about talent pool, we're talking about the average NBA player much more so than the NBA superstar. A bigger talent pool is not going to make Kareem come into existence, that part I believe, is largely luck - and the 60s NBA, while dominated by depression babies, definitely had superstar luck on their side.

[Doctor MJ]

As y'all undoubtedly noticed, we just ran a really damn long project. The idea was that we'd go back in NBA history and name the Player of the Year for each year. In the end we decided to go back through the beginning of the shot clock era. Our definition for the Player of the Year was the player who had the best season, including both regular season and playoffs. Kind of like an all-season MVP, but I felt using that same term would be too constraining.

Before I go any further, everyone should check out semi-sentient's site for the results of this project:

http://www.dolem.com/poy/

Voting was patterned after MVP voting, which means that we vote for the top 5 players in the league, and hence if there existed a player everyone agreed was 6th best, he wouldn't show up at all here. For this and a few other reasons, don't get too fixated on the data in the project as being a definitive ranking of best players or best careers. If you are really interested in analyzing our decision making, or simply interested in learning about history, I'd really recommend that you go to the first post of the project's main thread, and click on the links we have for every year we did.

I've taken some of that data and played around to come up with the things I'm going to list here. You can do the same using his site as the basis.

Without further ado:

The RPOY 56 (for the 56 years of shot clock basketball) based on POY shares:

Code: Select all

1. Bill Russell
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Michael Jordan
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Magic Johnson

6. Tim Duncan
7. Larry Bird
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Julius Erving
10. Karl Malone

11. Bob Pettit
12. Oscar Robertson
13. Hakeem Olajuwon
14. Kobe Bryant
15. Jerry West

16. Moses Malone
17. Kevin Garnett
18. LeBron James
19. David Robinson
20. Elgin Baylor

21. Dwyane Wade
22. Dolph Schayes
23. Walt Frazier
24. Charles Barkley
25. George Gervin

26. Bob McAdoo
27. Bill Walton
28. Dirk Nowitzki
29. Steve Nash
30. Rick Barry

31. Bob Cousy
32. Neil Johnston
33. Patrick Ewing
34. Paul Arizin
35. Alonzo Mourning

36. Gary Payton
37. Chris Paul
38. Willis Reed
39. Artis Gilmore
40. John Havlicek

41. Dave Cowens
42. Sidney Moncrief
43. Tracy McGrady
44. Cliff Hagan
45. Dwight Howard

46. Larry Foust
47. Bob Lanier
48. Clyde Drexler
49. Bernard King
50. Scottie Pippen

51. Grant Hill
52. Nate Thurmond
53. David Thompson
54. Allen Iverson
55. Elvin Hayes
56. Dominique Wilkins

Players with the most years at #1 - our POYs:

Code: Select all

1. Michael Jordan (9 years)
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (8)
3. Bill Russell (7)
4. Larry Bird (4)
   Tim Duncan (4)
   Wilt Chamberlain (4)

7. Shaquille O'Neal (3)
8. Bob Pettit (2)
   Hakeem Olajuwon (2)
   Kevin Garnett (2)
   LeBron James (2)
   Moses Malone (2)


Players with most unanimous POY awards:

Code: Select all

1. Michael Jordan (4)
2. Bill Russell (3)
3. Larry Bird (2)
   Shaquille O'Neal (2)
5. Kevin Garnett (1)
   Moses Malone (1)
   Wilt Chamberlain (1)

Youngest POY winners (Age)

Code: Select all

1. Tim Duncan (22)
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (23)
3. Bill Russell (24)
   Bob Pettit (24)
   Dwyane Wade (24)
   Larry Bird (24)
   LeBron James (24)
   Michael Jordan (24)

9. Julius Erving (25)
10. Dolph Schayes (26)
    Moses Malone (26)

Oldest POY winners (Age)

Code: Select all

1. Bill Russell (34)
   Michael Jordan (34)
3. Hakeem Olajuwon (32)
   Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (32)
5. Jerry West (31)
   Kevin Garnett (31)
   Wilt Chamberlain (31)

8. Rick Barry (30)
   Tim Duncan (30)
10. Larry Bird (29)
    Shaquille O'Neal (29)

Players with most years receiving votes:

Code: Select all

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (17)
2. Bill Russell (13)
   Julius Erving (13)
   Karl Malone (13)
   Wilt Chamberlain (13)

6. Hakeem Olajuwon (12)
   Tim Duncan (12)
8. Jerry West (11)
   Magic Johnson (11)
   Michael Jordan (11)
   Oscar Robertson (11)

Highest 00s POY shares:

Code: Select all

1. Tim Duncan
2. Shaquille O'Neal
3. Kobe Bryant
4. Kevin Garnett
5. LeBron James

6. Dwyane Wade
7. Dirk Nowitzki
8. Steve Nash
9. Chris Paul
10. Tracy McGrady

Highest 90s POY shares:

Code: Select all

1. Michael Jordan
2. Karl Malone
3. Hakeem Olajuwon
4. David Robinson
5. Shaquille O'Neal

6. Magic Johnson
7. Charles Barkley
8. Patrick Ewing
9. Tim Duncan
10. Clyde Drexler

Highest 80s POY shares:

Code: Select all

1. Larry Bird
2. Magic Johnson
3. Moses Malone
4. Michael Jordan
5. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

6. Julius Erving
7. Hakeem Olajuwon
8. Sidney Moncrief
9. Charles Barkley
10. Bernard King

Highest 70s POY shares:

Code: Select all

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Julius Erving
3. Walt Frazier
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Bob McAdoo

6. Jerry West
7. Bill Walton
8. George Gervin
9. Rick Barry
10. Artis Gilmore

Highest 60s POY shares:

Code: Select all

1. Bill Russell
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Oscar Robertson
4. Jerry West
5. Elgin Baylor

6. Bob Pettit
7. Nate Thurmond
8. Willis Reed
9. John Havlicek
10. Sam Jones

Highest POY shares, post-shot clock, pre-ABA years:

Code: Select all

1. Bill Russell
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Bob Pettit
4. Oscar Robertson
5. Dolph Schayes

6. Elgin Baylor
7. Jerry West
8. Bob Cousy
9. Neil Johnston
10. Paul Arizin

Highest POY shares, during ABA years:

Code: Select all

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Jerry West
4. Julius Erving
5. Walt Frazier

6. Bill Russell
7. Bob McAdoo
8. Rick Barry
9. Oscar Robertson
10. Willis Reed

Highest POY shares, post-merger:

Code: Select all

1. Michael Jordan
2. Magic Johnson
3. Tim Duncan
4. Larry Bird
5. Shaquille O'Neal

6. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
7. Karl Malone
8. Hakeem Olajuwon
9. Kobe Bryant
10. Moses Malone

[ronnymac2]

Can't say much right now, but I've been wanting to get this off my chest. I really gained a lot of knowledge and respect for the peaks of Bob McAdoo and Marques Johnson. Next time I'm involved in an all-time ranking project, they will get considerable attention from me. Johnson was such a beast for Milwaukee, and McAdoo was a dominant force at his peak, competing with Barry and Jabbar and Erving for best player at the time.


I think too much emphasis was placed on games missed during the regular season by many voters.

Julius Erving has extremely underrated longevity. Kareem's longevity in this project was mind-boggling.

[JordansBulls]

As y'all undoubtedly noticed, we just ran a really damn long project. The idea was that we'd go back in NBA history and name the Player of the Year for each year. In the end we decided to go back through the beginning of the shot clock era. Our definition for the Player of the Year was the player who had the best season, including both regular season and playoffs. Kind of like an all-season MVP, but I felt using that same term would be too constraining.

Before I go any further, everyone should check out semi-sentient's site for the results of this project:

http://www.dolem.com/poy/

Voting was patterned after MVP voting, which means that we vote for the top 5 players in the league, and hence if there existed a player everyone agreed was 6th best, he wouldn't show up at all here. For this and a few other reasons, don't get too fixated on the data in the project as being a definitive ranking of best players or best careers. If you are really interested in analyzing our decision making, or simply interested in learning about history, I'd really recommend that you go to the first post of the project's main thread, and click on the links we have for every year we did.

I've taken some of that data and played around to come up with the things I'm going to list here. You can do the same using his site as the basis.

Without further ado:

The RPOY 56 (for the 56 years of shot clock basketball) based on POY shares:

Code: Select all

1. Bill Russell
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Michael Jordan
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Magic Johnson

6. Tim Duncan
7. Larry Bird
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Julius Erving
10. Karl Malone

11. Bob Pettit
12. Oscar Robertson
13. Hakeem Olajuwon
14. Kobe Bryant
15. Jerry West

16. Moses Malone
17. Kevin Garnett
18. LeBron James
19. David Robinson
20. Elgin Baylor

21. Dwyane Wade
22. Dolph Schayes
23. Walt Frazier
24. Charles Barkley
25. George Gervin

26. Bob McAdoo
27. Bill Walton
28. Dirk Nowitzki
29. Steve Nash
30. Rick Barry

31. Bob Cousy
32. Neil Johnston
33. Patrick Ewing
34. Paul Arizin
35. Alonzo Mourning

36. Gary Payton
37. Chris Paul
38. Willis Reed
39. Artis Gilmore
40. John Havlicek

41. Dave Cowens
42. Sidney Moncrief
43. Tracy McGrady
44. Cliff Hagan
45. Dwight Howard

46. Larry Foust
47. Bob Lanier
48. Clyde Drexler
49. Bernard King
50. Scottie Pippen

51. Grant Hill
52. Nate Thurmond
53. David Thompson
54. Allen Iverson
55. Elvin Hayes
56. Dominique Wilkins

Players with the most years at #1 - our POYs:

Code: Select all

1. Michael Jordan (9 years)
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (8)
3. Bill Russell (7)
4. Larry Bird (4)
   Tim Duncan (4)
   Wilt Chamberlain (4)

7. Shaquille O'Neal (3)
8. Bob Pettit (2)
   Hakeem Olajuwon (2)
   Kevin Garnett (2)
   LeBron James (2)
   Moses Malone (2)


Players with most unanimous POY awards:

Code: Select all

1. Michael Jordan (4)
2. Bill Russell (3)
3. Larry Bird (2)
   Shaquille O'Neal (2)
5. Kevin Garnett (1)
   Moses Malone (1)
   Wilt Chamberlain (1)

Youngest POY winners (Age)

Code: Select all

1. Tim Duncan (22)
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (23)
3. Bill Russell (24)
   Bob Pettit (24)
   Dwyane Wade (24)
   Larry Bird (24)
   LeBron James (24)
   Michael Jordan (24)

9. Julius Erving (25)
10. Dolph Schayes (26)
    Moses Malone (26)

Oldest POY winners (Age)

Code: Select all

1. Bill Russell (34)
   Michael Jordan (34)
3. Hakeem Olajuwon (32)
   Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (32)
5. Jerry West (31)
   Kevin Garnett (31)
   Wilt Chamberlain (31)

8. Rick Barry (30)
   Tim Duncan (30)
10. Larry Bird (29)
    Shaquille O'Neal (29)

Players with most years receiving votes:

Code: Select all

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (17)
2. Bill Russell (13)
   Julius Erving (13)
   Karl Malone (13)
   Wilt Chamberlain (13)

6. Hakeem Olajuwon (12)
   Tim Duncan (12)
8. Jerry West (11)
   Magic Johnson (11)
   Michael Jordan (11)
   Oscar Robertson (11)

Highest 00s POY shares:

Code: Select all

1. Tim Duncan
2. Shaquille O'Neal
3. Kobe Bryant
4. Kevin Garnett
5. LeBron James

6. Dwyane Wade
7. Dirk Nowitzki
8. Steve Nash
9. Chris Paul
10. Tracy McGrady

Highest 90s POY shares:

Code: Select all

1. Michael Jordan
2. Karl Malone
3. Hakeem Olajuwon
4. David Robinson
5. Shaquille O'Neal

6. Magic Johnson
7. Charles Barkley
8. Patrick Ewing
9. Tim Duncan
10. Clyde Drexler

Highest 80s POY shares:

Code: Select all

1. Larry Bird
2. Magic Johnson
3. Moses Malone
4. Michael Jordan
5. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

6. Julius Erving
7. Hakeem Olajuwon
8. Sidney Moncrief
9. Charles Barkley
10. Bernard King

Highest 70s POY shares:

Code: Select all

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Julius Erving
3. Walt Frazier
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Bob McAdoo

6. Jerry West
7. Bill Walton
8. George Gervin
9. Rick Barry
10. Artis Gilmore

Highest 60s POY shares:

Code: Select all

1. Bill Russell
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Oscar Robertson
4. Jerry West
5. Elgin Baylor

6. Bob Pettit
7. Nate Thurmond
8. Willis Reed
9. John Havlicek
10. Sam Jones

Highest POY shares, post-shot clock, pre-ABA years:

Code: Select all

1. Bill Russell
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Bob Pettit
4. Oscar Robertson
5. Dolph Schayes

6. Elgin Baylor
7. Jerry West
8. Bob Cousy
9. Neil Johnston
10. Paul Arizin

Highest POY shares, during ABA years:

Code: Select all

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Jerry West
4. Julius Erving
5. Walt Frazier

6. Bill Russell
7. Bob McAdoo
8. Rick Barry
9. Oscar Robertson
10. Willis Reed

Highest POY shares, post-merger:

Code: Select all

1. Michael Jordan
2. Magic Johnson
3. Tim Duncan
4. Larry Bird
5. Shaquille O'Neal

6. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
7. Karl Malone
8. Hakeem Olajuwon
9. Kobe Bryant
10. Moses Malone

Weren't MJ and Russell both 35 in their last POY they won?

Also I am amazed that Karl Malone finished ahead of Hakeem in the 90's years only, when it was clear that Hakeem was the 2nd best player of the decade.

[penbeast0]

The Mailman was much more consistent than Hakeem in terms of impact; Hakeem's peak was higher.