RealGM

I’m using the recent revision of POY to adjust my big corp list, cross referencing my rankings for internal consistency.

I’ve collected what I think are the best seasons, better than an MVP level. These are ALL-TIME level seasons. You didn’t necessarily need to win the title, just be playing at such a high level that it has surpassed a MVP level.

Russell ‘62-‘64
Wilt ‘67
Kareem ‘74, ‘77
Bird ‘86*
Magic ‘87
Jordan ‘88-‘93, ‘96
Hakeem ‘93
Shaq ‘00-‘01
Duncan ‘02-‘03
KG ‘03-‘04
LeBron ‘09-‘10, ‘12-‘14, ‘16-‘17
Curry ‘17
Giannis ‘21
Jokic ‘23-‘24

Bird and Magic are *asteriks* because they’re the cutoffs. I originally had a few Milan seasons on my list, but I’ve relegated them to MVP level only.

What would you change?, How do your lists differ?

I’ll post my MVP level seasons next, but obviously it’s a far longer list.

I’ve personally removed all-time level from my rough draft corp style list. I found I was too biased - it was either going to a bunch of title winners or personal favorites.

On your version - is this through ‘24? Otherwise don’t see much reason not to have ‘25 Jokic as well.

‘94 Hakeem would probably join my list.

Bird/Giannis off.


Which seasons for the Russell/MJ/Bron trio might change a bit. Russell in particular very difficult.

I don't think 96 MJ was better than all but 1 season from Wilt, Magic and Bird. Your list seems way too title dependent to me. I think if you are doing corp style stuff it needs to be more rs weighted.

I have some minor disagreements with your list but in general your it makes sense. For some of the guys listed with ATG seasons, I feel as if they might have a few more than listed. Once people hit this level, I am not sure their overall goodness changes so much from season to season.

For me, Jokic from 22-25 would fall in the ATG category for example, and maybe even 21 has an argument. There are other examples.

I think I would go:

93-95 for Hakeem

84-86 for Bird (when healthy, so maybe you exclude 85)

If more RS-weighted, I'd put '94 Shaq on there. He was so good in only his second year in the league.

I think there’s probably more years for Magic. At least I do think 1990 for him was at that level. 1989 maybe would be too, but he got injured in the Finals so I think it’s out on that basis. Meanwhile, 1991 and 1988 are close but perhaps not quite there. So maybe I’d just say 1990.

I’d probably include two or three more years for Steph and Jokic too, though I understand reasons not to (for instance, I get not including 2016 Steph on the basis of his playoff performance definitely not being at an all-time level).

Okay so I really disagree at the top.

I don't understand how Mikan can be way better than anyone else in the league according to everyone and like almost always win and not get an all-time season.

Also think Bill winning 11 times with 5 MVPS and still winning on kind of weak teams even when everyone else teamed up against him has to be alot more than 3. I get he didn't have the stats but at some point we just have to get over the scoring thing when the guy is winning more without the help than alot of the people you're giving all time years too.

Also Kareem already maybe the best player as a rookie but he's only all time three times? 71 and 72 should be there for sure. Like 86 Bird is kind of just a team success thing and the 71 Bucks are better and Kareem has better stats and impact so.

Think you're overrating Jordan alot but I kind of saw that coming with Bill. Still feel 93 being better than like almost every Russell Kareem Magic Duncan and Hakeem season is on the wild side but he definitely put up stats. Magic had lots of good arguments made against 88-90 MJ so I think I'd put those 3 years as all time too. Also 1999 for Duncan i think? Pretty big carry job on a team that really did work on everyone.

2018 has to be there for Lebron.

Honest I think SGA should be here too.

I had an issue with Kareem too, unless you evaluate differently than I do. Going by individual domination of his opponents, those are reasonable choices for Kareem but they are also problematic in a way that the 72 season wasn't. After the Muslim group was gunned down at his house, Kareem notoriously shut down and was incommunicative in the locker room leading to a loss of team cohesion. He admits this in his book.

I am not sure whether he was making it known to his teammates in Milwaukee that he wanted out to LA or NY in 74, he still had Oscar there and things didn't publicly go downhill until 75 when Kareem and Dandridge were complaining and Lucius Allen got himself traded 10 games in but I'd assume the tensions were there by 74 though they went to the finals.

77 was an impressive carry job on a relatively weak Lakers team . . . before they got Nixon, Wilkes, etc. I'd have 72 and the title team as his second best year, or the rookie Magic team in 1980 when Magic got him back involved with his teammates and enjoying basketball again.

IlikeSHAIguys wrote:Okay so I really disagree at the top.

I don't understand how Mikan can be way better than anyone else in the league according to everyone and like almost always win and not get an all-time season.

Also think Bill winning 11 times with 5 MVPS and still winning on kind of weak teams even when everyone else teamed up against him has to be alot more than 3. I get he didn't have the stats but at some point we just have to get over the scoring thing when the guy is winning more without the help than alot of the people you're giving all time years too.

Also Kareem already maybe the best player as a rookie but he's only all time three times? 71 and 72 should be there for sure. Like 86 Bird is kind of just a team success thing and the 71 Bucks are better and Kareem has better stats and impact so.

Think you're overrating Jordan alot but I kind of saw that coming with Bill. Still feel 93 being better than like almost every Russell Kareem Magic Duncan and Hakeem season is on the wild side but he definitely put up stats. Magic had lots of good arguments made against 88-90 MJ so I think I'd put those 3 years as all time too. Also 1999 for Duncan i think? Pretty big carry job on a team that really did work on everyone.

2018 has to be there for Lebron.

Honest I think SGA should be here too.

I originally had 4 Mikan seasons as All-Time. But I've been reconsidering. Basically, do you think peak Mikan is better than peak West? Because I have 1966 West as one of the best MVP level seasons, but not quite All-Time Level. I can definitely see an argument for a few All-Time level seasons, as I have previously had them.

Bill has every other season of his a MVP level or weak MVP level, so is probably the only player in history that has his whole career at a weak MVP level at the minimum.

'71-'72 Kareem are also just about some of the best MVP level seasons without getting to All-Time level.

'93 MJ has one of the best NBA Finals if not the best finals in history. So that does a lot of heavy lifting. There was a project on here where voters ranked their top seasons of top 10 players. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RD6wOE7nOP9E4EHTNonTYUH-MrAUqRBM/edit?gid=20293567#gid=20293567. You can see in the Jordan tabs, his 1993 is ranked better than any Larry Bird season by 6 of the 8 voters.

I haven't done 2025 yet, but Jokic and SGA are strong contenders.

Seeing Siakim's overall performance, including his 2019 championship, I'd imagine he'd be a part of the top 5-10 discussion more often than Haliburton. He's just got a better track record, and Haliburton being the center of attention is, to me, an oversight.

trelos6 wrote:

IlikeSHAIguys wrote:Okay so I really disagree at the top.

I don't understand how Mikan can be way better than anyone else in the league according to everyone and like almost always win and not get an all-time season.

Also think Bill winning 11 times with 5 MVPS and still winning on kind of weak teams even when everyone else teamed up against him has to be alot more than 3. I get he didn't have the stats but at some point we just have to get over the scoring thing when the guy is winning more without the help than alot of the people you're giving all time years too.

Also Kareem already maybe the best player as a rookie but he's only all time three times? 71 and 72 should be there for sure. Like 86 Bird is kind of just a team success thing and the 71 Bucks are better and Kareem has better stats and impact so.

Think you're overrating Jordan alot but I kind of saw that coming with Bill. Still feel 93 being better than like almost every Russell Kareem Magic Duncan and Hakeem season is on the wild side but he definitely put up stats. Magic had lots of good arguments made against 88-90 MJ so I think I'd put those 3 years as all time too. Also 1999 for Duncan i think? Pretty big carry job on a team that really did work on everyone.

2018 has to be there for Lebron.

Honest I think SGA should be here too.

I originally had 4 Mikan seasons as All-Time. But I've been reconsidering. Basically, do you think peak Mikan is better than peak West? Because I have 1966 West as one of the best MVP level seasons, but not quite All-Time Level. I can definitely see an argument for a few All-Time level seasons, as I have previously had them.

Bill has every other season of his a MVP level or weak MVP level, so is probably the only player in history that has his whole career at a weak MVP level at the minimum.

'71-'72 Kareem are also just about some of the best MVP level seasons without getting to All-Time level.

'93 MJ has one of the best NBA Finals if not the best finals in history. So that does a lot of heavy lifting. There was a project on here where voters ranked their top seasons of top 10 players. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RD6wOE7nOP9E4EHTNonTYUH-MrAUqRBM/edit?gid=20293567#gid=20293567. You can see in the Jordan tabs, his 1993 is ranked better than any Larry Bird season by 6 of the 8 voters.

I haven't done 2025 yet, but Jokic and SGA are strong contenders.

How is West who was never even the best as good as Mikan who is the clear best guy every year?

Also I have to say I'm not getting how the 93 finals is better than taking out Wilt and West with lots less help? Like let's be honest. 1969 is way more impressive than 1993. If you can be all time for beating Chuck with a team that's really good. Then Russell should be all time when he's beating two of the best players with guys who literally miss the playoffs when he's gone.

Like honest, I don't know it makes sense for Jordan to have more all time seasons than Russell unless you're just thinking about whose better in 2025. Russell is kind of just a better version if you're just thinking about what guys did when they played.

IlikeSHAIguys wrote:

trelos6 wrote:

IlikeSHAIguys wrote:Okay so I really disagree at the top.

I don't understand how Mikan can be way better than anyone else in the league according to everyone and like almost always win and not get an all-time season.

Also think Bill winning 11 times with 5 MVPS and still winning on kind of weak teams even when everyone else teamed up against him has to be alot more than 3. I get he didn't have the stats but at some point we just have to get over the scoring thing when the guy is winning more without the help than alot of the people you're giving all time years too.

Also Kareem already maybe the best player as a rookie but he's only all time three times? 71 and 72 should be there for sure. Like 86 Bird is kind of just a team success thing and the 71 Bucks are better and Kareem has better stats and impact so.

Think you're overrating Jordan alot but I kind of saw that coming with Bill. Still feel 93 being better than like almost every Russell Kareem Magic Duncan and Hakeem season is on the wild side but he definitely put up stats. Magic had lots of good arguments made against 88-90 MJ so I think I'd put those 3 years as all time too. Also 1999 for Duncan i think? Pretty big carry job on a team that really did work on everyone.

2018 has to be there for Lebron.

Honest I think SGA should be here too.

I originally had 4 Mikan seasons as All-Time. But I've been reconsidering. Basically, do you think peak Mikan is better than peak West? Because I have 1966 West as one of the best MVP level seasons, but not quite All-Time Level. I can definitely see an argument for a few All-Time level seasons, as I have previously had them.

Bill has every other season of his a MVP level or weak MVP level, so is probably the only player in history that has his whole career at a weak MVP level at the minimum.

'71-'72 Kareem are also just about some of the best MVP level seasons without getting to All-Time level.

'93 MJ has one of the best NBA Finals if not the best finals in history. So that does a lot of heavy lifting. There was a project on here where voters ranked their top seasons of top 10 players. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RD6wOE7nOP9E4EHTNonTYUH-MrAUqRBM/edit?gid=20293567#gid=20293567. You can see in the Jordan tabs, his 1993 is ranked better than any Larry Bird season by 6 of the 8 voters.

I haven't done 2025 yet, but Jokic and SGA are strong contenders.

How is West who was never even the best as good as Mikan who is the clear best guy every year?

Also I have to say I'm not getting how the 93 finals is better than taking out Wilt and West with lots less help? Like let's be honest. 1969 is way more impressive than 1993. If you can be all time for beating Chuck with a team that's really good. Then Russell should be all time when he's beating two of the best players with guys who literally miss the playoffs when he's gone.

Like honest, I don't know it makes sense for Jordan to have more all time seasons than Russell unless you're just thinking about whose better in 2025. Russell is kind of just a better version if you're just thinking about what guys did when they played.

I think you must account that Jordan greatest peak is next to this in 91 92. Jordan a little worse but can’t be that much. Jordan is great defender and great offense. Russell only one end. It make sense he has less all time. Ring is not everything statistics and individual matter too.

BusywithBball wrote:

IlikeSHAIguys wrote:

trelos6 wrote:
I originally had 4 Mikan seasons as All-Time. But I've been reconsidering. Basically, do you think peak Mikan is better than peak West? Because I have 1966 West as one of the best MVP level seasons, but not quite All-Time Level. I can definitely see an argument for a few All-Time level seasons, as I have previously had them.

Bill has every other season of his a MVP level or weak MVP level, so is probably the only player in history that has his whole career at a weak MVP level at the minimum.

'71-'72 Kareem are also just about some of the best MVP level seasons without getting to All-Time level.

'93 MJ has one of the best NBA Finals if not the best finals in history. So that does a lot of heavy lifting. There was a project on here where voters ranked their top seasons of top 10 players. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RD6wOE7nOP9E4EHTNonTYUH-MrAUqRBM/edit?gid=20293567#gid=20293567. You can see in the Jordan tabs, his 1993 is ranked better than any Larry Bird season by 6 of the 8 voters.

I haven't done 2025 yet, but Jokic and SGA are strong contenders.

How is West who was never even the best as good as Mikan who is the clear best guy every year?

Also I have to say I'm not getting how the 93 finals is better than taking out Wilt and West with lots less help? Like let's be honest. 1969 is way more impressive than 1993. If you can be all time for beating Chuck with a team that's really good. Then Russell should be all time when he's beating two of the best players with guys who literally miss the playoffs when he's gone.

Like honest, I don't know it makes sense for Jordan to have more all time seasons than Russell unless you're just thinking about whose better in 2025. Russell is kind of just a better version if you're just thinking about what guys did when they played.

I think you must account that Jordan greatest peak is next to this in 91 92. Jordan a little worse but can’t be that much. Jordan is great defender and great offense. Russell only one end. It make sense he has less all time. Ring is not everything statistics and individual matter too.

If Jordan is only a little better than when he's doing worse stuff with better teammates then maybe we shouldn't just be like "greatest peak" in the first place?

IlikeSHAIguys wrote:

trelos6 wrote:

IlikeSHAIguys wrote:Okay so I really disagree at the top.

I don't understand how Mikan can be way better than anyone else in the league according to everyone and like almost always win and not get an all-time season.

Also think Bill winning 11 times with 5 MVPS and still winning on kind of weak teams even when everyone else teamed up against him has to be alot more than 3. I get he didn't have the stats but at some point we just have to get over the scoring thing when the guy is winning more without the help than alot of the people you're giving all time years too.

Also Kareem already maybe the best player as a rookie but he's only all time three times? 71 and 72 should be there for sure. Like 86 Bird is kind of just a team success thing and the 71 Bucks are better and Kareem has better stats and impact so.

Think you're overrating Jordan alot but I kind of saw that coming with Bill. Still feel 93 being better than like almost every Russell Kareem Magic Duncan and Hakeem season is on the wild side but he definitely put up stats. Magic had lots of good arguments made against 88-90 MJ so I think I'd put those 3 years as all time too. Also 1999 for Duncan i think? Pretty big carry job on a team that really did work on everyone.

2018 has to be there for Lebron.

Honest I think SGA should be here too.

I originally had 4 Mikan seasons as All-Time. But I've been reconsidering. Basically, do you think peak Mikan is better than peak West? Because I have 1966 West as one of the best MVP level seasons, but not quite All-Time Level. I can definitely see an argument for a few All-Time level seasons, as I have previously had them.

Bill has every other season of his a MVP level or weak MVP level, so is probably the only player in history that has his whole career at a weak MVP level at the minimum.

'71-'72 Kareem are also just about some of the best MVP level seasons without getting to All-Time level.

'93 MJ has one of the best NBA Finals if not the best finals in history. So that does a lot of heavy lifting. There was a project on here where voters ranked their top seasons of top 10 players. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RD6wOE7nOP9E4EHTNonTYUH-MrAUqRBM/edit?gid=20293567#gid=20293567. You can see in the Jordan tabs, his 1993 is ranked better than any Larry Bird season by 6 of the 8 voters.

I haven't done 2025 yet, but Jokic and SGA are strong contenders.

How is West who was never even the best as good as Mikan who is the clear best guy every year?

Also I have to say I'm not getting how the 93 finals is better than taking out Wilt and West with lots less help? Like let's be honest. 1969 is way more impressive than 1993. If you can be all time for beating Chuck with a team that's really good. Then Russell should be all time when he's beating two of the best players with guys who literally miss the playoffs when he's gone.

Like honest, I don't know it makes sense for Jordan to have more all time seasons than Russell unless you're just thinking about whose better in 2025. Russell is kind of just a better version if you're just thinking about what guys did when they played.

“I'm not getting how the 93 finals is better than taking out Wilt and West with lots less help” is just a type of logic that is completely devoid of anything about how the two players actually played, and operates under an assumption that everyone else on both teams must’ve all played at exactly their normal level (which, of course, is never true—for instance, Havlicek was incredible in the 1969 Finals and Baylor was totally off all playoffs, while Pippen couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn in the 1993 Finals, etc.). Jordan was incredible in the 1993 Finals, and vague handwaving doesn’t change that.

Of course, even your assessment of the other players’ normal level is probably off, since the 1969 Lakers were only a 3.84 SRS team (and 5.27 even just in the games West played). And I’m sure your assessments of the 1969 Celtics and 1993 Bulls supporting cast assumes no change in form for those players from 1969 to 1970 or 1993 to 1994 and probably also ignores the roster changes that occurred between those years. I think 1969 was a very impressive title win for Russell to get, but this kind of Rube-Goldberg-machine argument using vague handwaving with no reference to how anyone actually played in the relevant series is a misguided approach.

lessthanjake wrote:

IlikeSHAIguys wrote:

trelos6 wrote:
I originally had 4 Mikan seasons as All-Time. But I've been reconsidering. Basically, do you think peak Mikan is better than peak West? Because I have 1966 West as one of the best MVP level seasons, but not quite All-Time Level. I can definitely see an argument for a few All-Time level seasons, as I have previously had them.

Bill has every other season of his a MVP level or weak MVP level, so is probably the only player in history that has his whole career at a weak MVP level at the minimum.

'71-'72 Kareem are also just about some of the best MVP level seasons without getting to All-Time level.

'93 MJ has one of the best NBA Finals if not the best finals in history. So that does a lot of heavy lifting. There was a project on here where voters ranked their top seasons of top 10 players. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RD6wOE7nOP9E4EHTNonTYUH-MrAUqRBM/edit?gid=20293567#gid=20293567. You can see in the Jordan tabs, his 1993 is ranked better than any Larry Bird season by 6 of the 8 voters.

I haven't done 2025 yet, but Jokic and SGA are strong contenders.

How is West who was never even the best as good as Mikan who is the clear best guy every year?

Also I have to say I'm not getting how the 93 finals is better than taking out Wilt and West with lots less help? Like let's be honest. 1969 is way more impressive than 1993. If you can be all time for beating Chuck with a team that's really good. Then Russell should be all time when he's beating two of the best players with guys who literally miss the playoffs when he's gone.

Like honest, I don't know it makes sense for Jordan to have more all time seasons than Russell unless you're just thinking about whose better in 2025. Russell is kind of just a better version if you're just thinking about what guys did when they played.

Of course, even your assessment of the other players’ normal level is probably off, since the 1969 Lakers were only a 3.84 SRS team (and 5.27 even just in the games West played). And I’m sure your assessments of the 1969 Celtics and 1993 Bulls supporting cast assumes no change in form for those players from 1969 to 1970 or 1993 to 1994 and probably also ignores the roster changes that occurred between those years. I think 1969 was a very impressive title win for Russell to get, but this kind of Rube-Goldberg-machine argument using vague handwaving with no reference to how anyone actually played in the relevant series is a misguided approach.

SRS is only relevant to CORP to the extent it predicts championships. And with Russell beating two teams that fought a 7-game finals the following season and accounted for three titles the following 6 years, one of whom added the centerpiece of the league's best or second best team after making the finals the previous year... Russell unmistakably beat the better opponents.

That he did so with, empirically, significantly less help, following a regular season where his Celtics were closer to the top than the Bulls were, renders the concept that Jordan offered more "championship over replacement value" in 93 objectively silly.

You can handwave away the Lakers and Knicks much superior track-records as it pertains to actual championship winning...but the Suns were not a remotely comparable opponent for the time period, and Jordan's supporting cast was significantly better.

OhayoKD wrote:

lessthanjake wrote:

IlikeSHAIguys wrote:How is West who was never even the best as good as Mikan who is the clear best guy every year?

Also I have to say I'm not getting how the 93 finals is better than taking out Wilt and West with lots less help? Like let's be honest. 1969 is way more impressive than 1993. If you can be all time for beating Chuck with a team that's really good. Then Russell should be all time when he's beating two of the best players with guys who literally miss the playoffs when he's gone.

Like honest, I don't know it makes sense for Jordan to have more all time seasons than Russell unless you're just thinking about whose better in 2025. Russell is kind of just a better version if you're just thinking about what guys did when they played.

Of course, even your assessment of the other players’ normal level is probably off, since the 1969 Lakers were only a 3.84 SRS team (and 5.27 even just in the games West played). And I’m sure your assessments of the 1969 Celtics and 1993 Bulls supporting cast assumes no change in form for those players from 1969 to 1970 or 1993 to 1994 and probably also ignores the roster changes that occurred between those years. I think 1969 was a very impressive title win for Russell to get, but this kind of Rube-Goldberg-machine argument using vague handwaving with no reference to how anyone actually played in the relevant series is a misguided approach.

SRS is only relevant to CORP to the extent it predicts championships. And with Russell beating two teams that fought a 7-game finals the following season and accounted for three titles the following 6 years, one of whom added the centerpiece of the league's best or second best team after making the finals the previous year... Russell unmistakably beat the better opponents.

That he did so with, empirically, significantly less help, following a regular season where his Celtics were closer to the top than the Bulls were, renders the concept that Jordan offered more "championship over replacement value" in 93 objectively silly.

You can handwave away the Lakers and Knicks much superior track-records as it pertains to actual championship winning...but the Suns were not a remotely comparable opponent for the time period, and Jordan's supporting cast was significantly better.

First of all, what I was responding to was specifically handwaving things about teams’ rosters to say how players must’ve played in the Finals without any reference to how they actually played. You don’t defend that here, because it is just obviously not a good approach. And that’s true even if IlikeSHAIguys had been right about the normal level of these teams. We know Jordan’s individual performance was extremely good in the 1993 Finals, and no amount of vague handwaving will ever change that.

As for your discussion of the tangential issue of what these teams’ normal levels were, you fall into the same traps I mentioned of “assum[ing] no change in form for these players” and “ignor[ing] the roster changes that occurred between those years.” You talk about the Knicks’ success in the future. Leaving aside that the discussion you were responding to was specifically about the Finals (so the Celtics beating the Knicks in an earlier series isn’t actually on topic), you ignore that the Knicks’ best player in that run (Walt Frazier) was young and hadn’t emerged yet as a star in 1969, but had emerged by the next year. That’s definitely incredibly important context that your handwaving conveniently leaves out. Meanwhile, you talk about the 1969 Lakers accounting for one of the titles in the next several years, but the 1972 Lakers only had two players in common with the 1969 Lakers. The 1969 Celtics did not beat the 1972 Lakers—not even close. You mention the 1970 Lakers making the Finals, but the 1970 Lakers were a 46-win, 1.76 SRS team that beat a 0.31 SRS team and a -1.66 SRS team to make the Finals (and they struggled to beat the -1.66 SRS team). They did take the Knicks to 7 games, but losing a series to a good team is the most impressive thing on their resumé—which isn’t exactly awe-inspiring. And that’s all after two of their major rotation players changed anyways (adding Happy Hairston and Dick Garrett). Your handwaving just ignores stuff like this. The best gauge of how good these teams actually were is how good they were in the actual year in question, not your analogies across years to different teams with different rosters and players playing in different levels of form. The 1969 Lakers were a good team. They had a 5.27 SRS in the games Jerry West played. But they weren’t world-beaters and the 1993 Suns objectively had a better season than the 1969 Lakers did. I could actually be convinced that the 1969 Knicks were better than the 1993 Suns (mostly based on how they did after DeBusschere joined), but the discussion wasn’t about that, and of course even there it’d be dumb to assume everyone played at their normal level in a series (for instance, Bailey Howell went on the biggest heater of his career in that series).

On that front, I think this is something you really just choose to ignore whenever it’s convenient to you. We all watch the playoffs and see time and time again that it’s extremely common for players to play better or worse than their normal level in a series. Your tactic seems to be to acknowledge that that’s true of star players but, when it is convenient to you, assume everyone else on both teams must’ve played exactly at their normal level and therefore any perceived underperformance or overperformance at a team level must be caused by an underperformance or overperformance by a star player. And you do this regardless of what the star player’s stats in the series were—assuming that your holding-everyone-else-constant handwaving is catching impact (or lack thereof) that isn’t in the box score, rather than just variance in how all the other players in the series played. It’s not serious analysis.