Retro Player of the Year 1971-72 UPDATE — Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

[Dutchball97]

Player of the Year
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - Kareem's dominance on both sides of the floor led him to keep the Bucks competitive with the Lakers on both sides of the floor despite the Lakers having both the best offensive player in West and best defensive player in Wilt. I do think there is an argument for Wilt as he did beat Kareem head to head with West struggling but overall Wilt's defensive advantage doesn't seem nearly large enough to overcome the offensive advantage for Kareem.

2. Wilt Chamberlain - He had a top 3 regular season and was the best defender in the league in both the regular season and play-offs (unless you count Thurmond's spectacular one series showing) all the way to leading the Lakers to a title at the age of 35. While I don't think Wilt's post-season was convincing enough for him to bridge the regular season gap Kareem built up but it was strong enough to keep the lead to the rest of the field, especially with West underperforming.

3. Walt Frazier - Frazier held together the Knicks fairly well in the regular season with Reed missing the majority of the season but it's the play-offs where he really makes his case. While he remains pretty consistent statistically in the regular season and post-season, I see the Knicks beating the higher seeded Celtics to make the finals again without Reed as an impressive feat. Overall Frazier had a fairly comparable season to Wilt but just a tad worse. To me this is a pretty clear top 3, unless you go really hard on the regular season and pick someone like West or Gilmore over Frazier.

4. Nate Thurmond - I originally had him on the outside looking in but him not only getting a very mediocre supporting cast to the play-offs but then also doing an incredibly job at containing Kareem is just too much to pass up on in a rather open field after the top 3. Thurmond's defense is absolutely elite and his offense this season is the best of his career on top of it.

5. Julius Erving - I had a hard time deciding who I had as the top guy in the ABA this season. Gilmore obviously had the best regular season but he was upset early with a performance that was decent enough but not terribly inspiring for someone who dominated the regular season. Barry has a decent argument as well but Erving had a stronger regular season and their head to head match up Dr J not only outscored Barry but also nearly tripled his rebounds and assists despite playing the same position. While the Squires did end up losing in 7, it should be considered Barry played less minutes than John Roche and Billy Paultz, while Erving was playing a whopping 12 more mintues than anyone else on his team. From the NBA I considered Havlicek as well but while I'd have Havlicek slightly ahead in the regular season due to the NBA being a better league, in the post-season I think Julius Erving seperates himself.

Offensive Player of the Year
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Jerry West
3. Julius Erving

I think it was a close race for best offensive player in the regular season between Kareem and West but while both struggled in different ways in the post-season, I have Kareem coming out on top. The last place was mainly between Erving and Frazier for me as both had average to above average offense in the regular season and then had significantly more success in the post-season although the deciding factor is that I think the Squires improvement was more down to individual excellence from Erving than Frazier did for the Knicks. With Scott leaving for the NBA right before the play-offs, Dr J stepped up all across the floor and upped his efficiency while doing so.

Defensive Player of the Year
1. Wilt Chamberlain
2. Nate Thurmond
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Wilt was the best defensive player all season, which landed him second on the POY ballot despite pretty lackluster offense. Thurmond was elite in the regular season and even better in the play-offs. Kareem and Gilmore wasn't an easy decision but it looks like the Bucks defense held up better than the Colonels' in the post-season.

[70sFan]

1. Kareem.
This is the easiest vote yet. Kareem is #1 by a preposterous margin. He was the most impactful player by far, carrying a pretty middling team to contention.

2. Artis Gilmore
He was a deserving ABA MVP, and by this point the ABA was comparable to the NBA anyway. The Colonels won 68 games on the back of Artis impact on both ends, particularly on D. I’m comfortable saying he was the most impactful defender in basketball those years. He’s one of the most underrated players in NBA history.

3. Dr J.
I don’t really care that he was a rookie, he was already leading the pitiful Squires to the playoffs while putting up 27-16-4 on 500. from the field. I don’t need to wait to put Dr J into the mix, he was already better than guys like West ever were in year 1.

4. Zelmo Beaty
5. Frazier

Zelmo led a 60 win team as their focal point, and the numbers in previous years strongly show his value. I don’t think anything changed, people just started noticing more in the ABA. Wilt was diminished, but I’d still take him over the likes of West or Havlicek, and certainly over Oscar... that said, Frazier gets the nod for me.

I don't think there is a single season in which you could take Zelmo Beaty over Wilt Chamberlain (outside of 1970 when Wilt was injured) and I see no reason to put Zelmo ahead of Wilt in 1972. Beaty abused still young ABA without many quality bigs outside of a few stars, it's extremely unlikely he'd ever reach that level in the NBA.

I am saying this as a huge Beaty supporter, he is a very underrated player historically. I just find your Beaty takes (along with your lack of belief in Oscar Robertson in previous threads) quite strange to be honest.

The bolded part about Gilmore is also questionable. Gilmore is arguably my favorite player of all-time, so I don't want to spend much time downgrading him (100% agree he's one of the most underrated ever), but based on what I have seen from 2nd year Gilmore, it's not likely that he's leagues ahead of someone like Thurmond or Wilt.

Also, I get that young Julius did fairly well in the playoffs and it's defensible to put him ahead of West this season, but saying that rookie Julius is a better player than peak West is ridiculous.

I just want to say that the lack of quality in the ABA wasn't really in the bigs by 72. Out of 11 teams, you had 4 top quality centers: Gilmore, Daniels, Beaty, and Issel, plus solid pros like Jim Eakins or Mike Lewis, defensive specialists like Julius Keye or Gerald Govan, and a couple of young players with real talent like Jim McDaniel or Dave Robisch that needed seasoning. You only had a couple of teams relying on weak centers like NBA retread Lenny Chappell or Ira Harge.
Even in reserve you had the likes of Tom Owens who started for Portland in the NBA for several years. The weakest position in the league in my opinion, surprisingly, was the guard position.

We agree that these 4 are very much quality centers, but two of them happened to play in one team. That gives us only 3 out of 11 teams with strong starting centers, way less than in the NBA with Kareem, Wilt, Thurmond, Lanier, Reed (injured, but you can throw Lucas here), Unseld, Hayes, Bellamy, Cowens... that's already 9 out of 17. The talent distribution was significantly different in the ABA, that's my point.

[penbeast0]

Issel played the majority of his career at center, but true, this was his first year moving to PF. Heck, in Moses's rookie year, they had him theoretically starting at SF next to Eakins, Govan, and reserve Randy Denton. But yes, in my head I was still thinking Issel was starting at center. Thanks for the correction.

[Dr Positivity]

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - He is the best player in the league.

2. Wilt Chamberlain - Someone had to be making a high impact on THIS good of a team with 69 Ws and pretty damn hard playoff competition, yes West is great in RS but has shockingly underwhelming last 2 rounds statistically, I don't think the Lakers rotation after the top 3 is that spectacular.

3. Walt Frazier - His stats are helped by a bit Lucas floor spacing, but is still in his prime taking team to finals without Reed.

4. Nate Thurmond - The Warriors win 51 games this year with actually less help than some of the previous mediocre post Barry seasons when they had Mullins and Lucas, then defends Kareem well.

5. Rick Barry - All the ABA guys are close but I'm going to go with Barry for carrying his team to the finals including a huge upset over Kentucky.

Offensive player of the year

1. Walt Frazier
2. Rick Barry
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Defensive player of the year

1. Wilt Chamberlain
2. Dave DeBusschere
3. Nate Thurmond

[One_and_Done]

Yeh, I disagree. The footage I've seen of early 70s Wilt looks like he had less motor and burst. He seems slower and stiffer. I think the Lakers had good players this year, but were closer to an ensemble cast than 1 or 2 guys dominating. I'd rather have had Wilt's supporting cast than what Gilmore or Zelmo had (who both led 68 and 60 win teams respectively).

[70sFan]

Yeh, I disagree. The footage I've seen of early 70s Wilt looks like he had less motor and burst. He seems slower and stiffer. I think the Lakers had good players this year, but were closer to an ensemble cast than 1 or 2 guys dominating. I'd rather have had Wilt's supporting cast than what Gilmore or Zelmo had (who both led 68 and 60 win teams respectively).

Being slower doesn't necessarily make you a worse player. Wilt had a better cast than Zelmo or Gilmore (though both had phenomenal help), but he also competed in a better league.

[Narigo]

1. Kareem Abdul Jabbar- was the best player in the regular season by a wide margin. Played poorly in the playoffs however when guarded by Wilt and Thurmond. Was carried by his supporting cast in the first round against the Warriors.

2. Wilt Chamberlain- seems to focus his more on defense than his other seasons with the Lakers. Leads the Lakers to championship as clear best player


3. Walt Frazier- leads the team to the NBA finals without Reed. May have peak this year.

4. Jerry West- Became more a distributor this season because of McMillan, Wilt, and Goodrich are capable scorers. Played poorly in the playoffs but still a clear number 4 imo.

5. John Havichek- very close call between Thurmond and Hondo

[OhayoKD]

1. Kareem Abdul Jabbar- was the best player in the regular season by a wide margin. Played poorly in the playoffs however when guarded by Wilt and Thurmond. Was carried by his supporting cast in the first round against the Warriors.

Played "poorly" and outscored a top ten-ever team with his 2nd best player averaging 8-points and 30 minutes

If people want to chide Kareem for his performance in what was on average a 10-point blowout, fine. But Per-brain is not a great reason to argue a player who is taking out 3 defenders frequently for his assists(hint: they're going to be more valuable) and also is one of the best paint-protectors ever was "poor" amidst seeing a historic defense likely get even better in the playoffs, while his team wildly overperformed against about as difficult an opponent as you can face.

[Djoker]

I am under the impression that 1972 Wilt was considerably better on defense than Gilmore and Beaty. Maybe just me.

As for Kareem, I can't see how his series against the Lakers was poor. Backcourt ravaged by injuries so he had to carry a huge offensive load. Still averaged 33.7/17.5/4.8 on 48.2 %TS (+0.9 rTS). Sure it's not +10 rTS but it's still positive efficiency. Not to mention he likely had huge defensive impact too. Bucks had a -12.8 rDRtg in the series meaning they held the Lakers down a ton from their RS averages. If anything, I think Kareem's WCF performance is very underrated considering the immense load he carried on both ends and the greatness of the opponent. 1972 Lakers are among the few greatest teams ever.

[tsherkin]

I am under the impression that 1972 Wilt was considerably better on defense than Gilmore and Beaty. Maybe just me.

As for Kareem, I can't see how his series against the Lakers was poor. Backcourt ravaged by injuries so he had to carry a huge offensive load. Still averaged 33.7/17.5/4.8 on 48.2 %TS (+0.9 rTS). Sure it's not +10 rTS but it's still positive efficiency.

His TS% in the series against the Lakers was actually below playoff league average efficiency, though.

[One_and_Done]

I hear a lot about how the ABA was so much weaker than the NBA. Maybe for the first couple of years, but by 72 it was probably just as good.

The Spurs and Nuggets are the proof of that. They both transitioned to the NBA and performed just as good if not better. The Spurs from 74-76 won 45, 51 and 50 games, and from 77-79 in the NBA they won 44, 52 and 48. That’s basically identical, and their SRS is just as good if not better (their best SRS season was 79). Moreover, they did all that in the NBA with their 2nd best player James Silas destroyed by injuries. In 77 Silas got hurt, and he was never the same again. He only played 22 and 37 games in his first 2 NBA seasons. In 1976 Silas was 2nd in the MVP vote, and in the all-ABA first team. In 1979 he was a 16 ppg player who gave you 27mpg; a shell of his former self. For the Spurs to come to the NBA and perform just as well, if not better, despite Silas injury suggests that the ABA was actually the stronger league.

The Pacers dropped from a 60 win team to a 50 win team when they got to the NBA, but they also lost 5 time all-star Ralph Simpson. Some of that drop may also just be an experienced team pacing themselves.

Of course, that was 1976, not 1972, so why bring it up? Well, we actually have a good baseline for comparing 1976 to 1972, because the Pacers were the 1972 champs. They won 47 games that year, and won 51, 46, 45 and 39 games the following 4 seasons. The 39 win season coming after they lost superstar George McGinnis (and ABA MVP Mel Daniels, who had left in 75). Otherwise, the 72 team was pretty similar personnel wise to the 75 team. They were built around stars McGinnis & Mel Daniels, with similar support casts around them. McGinnis was better in 75 than he was as a 21 year old in 72, but that only enhances the argument that the ABA was just as strong in 72 as say 75 or 76.

There were more big guys you can name and who have made the HoF in the NBA, but that’s not the measure of how strong a league is. The ABA was as strong as the NBA from 72 to 76, regardless of who had the “most recognisable name big men”.

[AEnigma]

I am under the impression that 1972 Wilt was considerably better on defense than Gilmore and Beaty. Maybe just me.

As for Kareem, I can't see how his series against the Lakers was poor. Backcourt ravaged by injuries so he had to carry a huge offensive load. Still averaged 33.7/17.5/4.8 on 48.2 %TS (+0.9 rTS). Sure it's not +10 rTS but it's still positive efficiency.

His TS% in the series against the Lakers was actually below playoff league average efficiency, though.

Seems better to measure against the opponent than against some abstract collective of postseason teams in varying samples of play. And the Lakers elevated from their regular defence in all three postseason series.

[AEnigma]

I hear a lot about how the ABA was so much weaker than the NBA. Maybe for the first couple of years, but by 72 it was probably just as good.

The Spurs and Nuggets are the proof of that. They both transitioned to the NBA and performed just as good if not better. The Spurs from 74-76 won 45, 51 and 50 games, and from 77-79 in the NBA they won 44, 52 and 48. That’s basically identical, and their SRS is just as good if not better (their best SRS season was 79). Moreover, they did all that in the NBA with their 2nd best player James Silas destroyed by injuries. In 77 Silas got hurt, and he was never the same again. He only played 22 and 37 games in his first 2 NBA seasons. In 1976 Silas was 2nd in the MVP vote, and in the all-ABA first team. In 1979 he was a 16 ppg player who gave you 27mpg; a shell of his former self. For the Spurs to come to the NBA and perform just as well, if not better, despite Silas injury suggests that the ABA was actually the stronger league.

The Pacers dropped from a 60 win team to a 50 win team when they got to the NBA, but they also lost 5 time all-star Ralph Simpson. Some of that drop may also just be an experienced team pacing themselves.

Of course, that was 1976, not 1972, so why bring it up? Well, we actually have a good baseline for comparing 1976 to 1972, because the Pacers were the 1972 champs. They won 47 games that year, and won 51, 46, 45 and 39 games the following 4 seasons. The 39 win season coming after they lost superstar George McGinnis (and ABA MVP Mel Daniels, who had left in 75). Otherwise, the 72 team was pretty similar personnel wise to the 75 team. They were built around stars McGinnis & Mel Daniels, with similar support casts around them. McGinnis was better in 75 than he was as a 21 year old in 72, but that only enhances the argument that the ABA was just as strong in 72 as say 75 or 76.

There were more big guys you can name and who have made the HoF in the NBA, but that’s not the measure of how strong a league is. The ABA was as strong as the NBA from 72 to 76, regardless of who had the “most recognisable name big men”.

The 1977 Pacers shared two roleplayers with the 1972 Pacers (and essentially just one because Lewis only played 552 minutes), but sure, may as well equate them!

Unless you sincerely believe the 1972 Pacers could seriously compete with the 1972 Bucks or Lakers, the discrepancy is obvious.

[penbeast0]

I hear a lot about how the ABA was so much weaker than the NBA. Maybe for the first couple of years, but by 72 it was probably just as good.

The Spurs and Nuggets are the proof of that. They both transitioned to the NBA and performed just as good if not better. The Spurs from 74-76 won 45, 51 and 50 games, and from 77-79 in the NBA they won 44, 52 and 48. That’s basically identical, and their SRS is just as good if not better (their best SRS season was 79). Moreover, they did all that in the NBA with their 2nd best player James Silas destroyed by injuries. In 77 Silas got hurt, and he was never the same again. He only played 22 and 37 games in his first 2 NBA seasons. In 1976 Silas was 2nd in the MVP vote, and in the all-ABA first team. In 1979 he was a 16 ppg player who gave you 27mpg; a shell of his former self. For the Spurs to come to the NBA and perform just as well, if not better, despite Silas injury suggests that the ABA was actually the stronger league.

The Pacers dropped from a 60 win team to a 50 win team when they got to the NBA, but they also lost 5 time all-star Ralph Simpson. Some of that drop may also just be an experienced team pacing themselves.

Of course, that was 1976, not 1972, so why bring it up? Well, we actually have a good baseline for comparing 1976 to 1972, because the Pacers were the 1972 champs. They won 47 games that year, and won 51, 46, 45 and 39 games the following 4 seasons. The 39 win season coming after they lost superstar George McGinnis (and ABA MVP Mel Daniels, who had left in 75). Otherwise, the 72 team was pretty similar personnel wise to the 75 team. They were built around stars McGinnis & Mel Daniels, with similar support casts around them. McGinnis was better in 75 than he was as a 21 year old in 72, but that only enhances the argument that the ABA was just as strong in 72 as say 75 or 76.

There were more big guys you can name and who have made the HoF in the NBA, but that’s not the measure of how strong a league is. The ABA was as strong as the NBA from 72 to 76, regardless of who had the “most recognisable name big men”.

I am and was a huge ABA fan but I would say the only year it actually achieved reasonable parity with or even surpassed the NBA was 1975 though Virginia drags the league down, 76 might have but team cohesion fell apart and Virginia was historically bad. 71 or 72 were the first year it was reasonably competitive, like an above .500 team going to the 2nd round of the playoffs v. the guys who won the ring level competitive. 73 and 74 it got stronger, competitive with but not quite up to NBA level, 75 partially it continued to strengthen and partially Kareem, one of the more significant NBA edges, had a worst in prime career year.

[OhayoKD]

I am under the impression that 1972 Wilt was considerably better on defense than Gilmore and Beaty. Maybe just me.

As for Kareem, I can't see how his series against the Lakers was poor. Backcourt ravaged by injuries so he had to carry a huge offensive load. Still averaged 33.7/17.5/4.8 on 48.2 %TS (+0.9 rTS). Sure it's not +10 rTS but it's still positive efficiency. Not to mention he likely had huge defensive impact too. Bucks had a -12.8 rDRtg in the series meaning they held the Lakers down a ton from their RS averages. If anything, I think Kareem's WCF performance is very underrated considering the immense load he carried on both ends and the greatness of the opponent. 1972 Lakers are among the few greatest teams ever.

from a non-box lens, the bucks outscoring the lakers with Kareem's primary support seeing a injury-related collapse in minutes and scoring is in the running for most empirically impressive individual series ever(paticularly if you use that massive rookie-signal as a starting point).


And I see no reason to rule out Kareem of all people being able to make up for an efficiency drop when he is an all-timer at what might well have still been the most valuable individual skill in the game at this point(on-top of likely having the most gravity of anyone in the league).

This is why it would be nice to have completely different types of box-scores. The lack of a control group has produced wildly unfounded confidence in what are basically just a collection of very similar (and biased towards elite smalls) eye-tests with extra steps.

[penbeast0]

Discussion would be very different if George Mikan had successfully signed Lew Alcindor (Kareem) out of college. They had a plan, some ABA people think it would have and should have worked, Mikan changed the plan and that was one of the reasons they got rid of him.

Add Kareem to the LA Stars (who don't move to Utah) with Willie Wise and Mack Calvin, don't have him in the NBA, and the whole landscape changes to where they probably is parity or close to it by 72.

[One_and_Done]

I hear a lot about how the ABA was so much weaker than the NBA. Maybe for the first couple of years, but by 72 it was probably just as good.

The Spurs and Nuggets are the proof of that. They both transitioned to the NBA and performed just as good if not better. The Spurs from 74-76 won 45, 51 and 50 games, and from 77-79 in the NBA they won 44, 52 and 48. That’s basically identical, and their SRS is just as good if not better (their best SRS season was 79). Moreover, they did all that in the NBA with their 2nd best player James Silas destroyed by injuries. In 77 Silas got hurt, and he was never the same again. He only played 22 and 37 games in his first 2 NBA seasons. In 1976 Silas was 2nd in the MVP vote, and in the all-ABA first team. In 1979 he was a 16 ppg player who gave you 27mpg; a shell of his former self. For the Spurs to come to the NBA and perform just as well, if not better, despite Silas injury suggests that the ABA was actually the stronger league.

The Pacers dropped from a 60 win team to a 50 win team when they got to the NBA, but they also lost 5 time all-star Ralph Simpson. Some of that drop may also just be an experienced team pacing themselves.

Of course, that was 1976, not 1972, so why bring it up? Well, we actually have a good baseline for comparing 1976 to 1972, because the Pacers were the 1972 champs. They won 47 games that year, and won 51, 46, 45 and 39 games the following 4 seasons. The 39 win season coming after they lost superstar George McGinnis (and ABA MVP Mel Daniels, who had left in 75). Otherwise, the 72 team was pretty similar personnel wise to the 75 team. They were built around stars McGinnis & Mel Daniels, with similar support casts around them. McGinnis was better in 75 than he was as a 21 year old in 72, but that only enhances the argument that the ABA was just as strong in 72 as say 75 or 76.

There were more big guys you can name and who have made the HoF in the NBA, but that’s not the measure of how strong a league is. The ABA was as strong as the NBA from 72 to 76, regardless of who had the “most recognisable name big men”.

The 1977 Pacers shared two roleplayers with the 1972 Pacers (and essentially just one because Lewis only played 552 minutes), but sure, may as well equate them!

Unless you sincerely believe the 1972 Pacers could seriously compete with the 1972 Bucks or Lakers, the discrepancy is obvious.

Obviously by 77 that Pacers team didn't exist anymore, but that changes none of what I said.

[One_and_Done]

Discussion would be very different if George Mikan had successfully signed Lew Alcindor (Kareem) out of college. They had a plan, some ABA people think it would have and should have worked, Mikan changed the plan and that was one of the reasons they got rid of him.

Add Kareem to the LA Stars (who don't move to Utah) with Willie Wise and Mack Calvin, don't have him in the NBA, and the whole landscape changes to where they probably is parity or close to it by 72.

If Kareem played for the ABA he'd have the same haters Gilmore and such do, he'd be unappreciated is all by those who downplay the ABA.

[penbeast0]

I don't think so. Playing for Wooden at UCLA with his ridiculous college success made him a far bigger and more polished prospect coming into the ABA than Gilmore who was much more raw.

[tsherkin]

Seems better to measure against the opponent than against some abstract collective of postseason teams in varying samples of play. And the Lakers elevated from their regular defence in all three postseason series.

I don't know, it makes the point pretty well. He was 2.2% below RS league average, 1.6% worse than playoff average, and 0.9% better than what the Lakers were permitting on a team basis (not an individual basis) in the RS. And he averaged 40.2 ppg against the Lakers in the regular season. And if we're using team-allowed, the Lakers permitted 49.0% FG in the RS. Then 42.7% vs Chicago, 43.6% vs Milwaukee and 47.0% against the Knicks. New York got roflstomped on the boards in that series but they actually shot really, really well. Kareem, for his part, shot 45.7%, which was obviously considerably worse than the 57.4% he'd shot in the RS... but he'd also shot 40.5% against the Warriors. Big, strong guys were not his favorite matchups. Same same with Moses Malone later on in his career.

So I think it's still a reasonable yardstick, to be honest, since comparing his performance to the team TS% permitted the Lakers allowed isn't really any better than looking at how far he dropped in efficacy from the RS or the PS averages. The Lakers definitely elevated their defense, and I think that's pretty clear regardless of what angle you take on Kareem. He did worse than he had done in the RS, no doubt. Walker was a shell of himself for Chicago, of course, but they definitely made Bob Love look like crap. The no-Reed Knicks couldn't keep up but Frazier looked just fine.