Retro POY '76-77 (Voting Complete)

[ronnymac2]

Wow. Bill Walton is the man, but there is just no way I can put Kareem Abdul-Jabbar at number two. Or three or four or five. Or off the list. This is peak Kareem. Absolute peak Kareem. **** 71 and 72. This right here is the best Kareem Abdul-Jabbar we will ever see. This is Shaq in 2000, except Jabbar's team wasn't good enough in a Western Conference Finals against the Portland Trailblazers. Players have been this year's Kareem's equal. Nobody has been better.


What I love about Walton is his effect on the game. How he helps his teammates while hurting the other team's chances of success. He does this like Russell used to do. And he has a little more ability than Russ to win his individual matchup, too. You could see in his matchup with KAJ that even with Jabbar's presence, Walton's impact could be seen helping his teammates out while taking certain aspects of Jabbar's game away, opening things up for his teammates. I've seen that game four. The Lakers sucked. Portland isn't super-talented, but has a great core. Mo Lucas is awesome. I'll say it again: he's the most underrated historical player on this board.

Walton vs. Erving is going to be interesting, because Dr. J had an amazing year, and his team lost despite Erving's magnificent individual play.

Other contenders are Hayes, Gilmore, Lanier, and Barry. Maybe Mcadoo. I'll want to put Pistol Pete in there. We'll see.

[Doctor MJ]

Teams stats from Lakers-Blazers series:

Code: Select all

Team    P     R     A      S    B    TO    PF    FGA   FTA   TS%
Lakers  101.0 43.3  24.5   9.5  5.5  21.0  23.3  86.3  24.8  52.0
Blazers 106.8 42.3  28.0  14.3  4.8  18.0  22.8  89.5  25.5  53.0

[Doctor MJ]

My vote:

1. Walton
2. Kareem
3. Julius
4. Artis
5. Bobby Jones

Oh Walton & Kareem, so tough. My standard analysis comes down to who is actually lifting his team more, and really every indicator says that's Walton. That's what people at the time said, that's what a rough game-based +/- said (thanks ElGee). I do think people tend to focus on Blazers' overall record this year and so not see a big difference, but Portland had the big SRS lead, won the title convincingly, and kept dominating the next year. I don't treat SRS as gospel, but when a team goes onto win a title with a great SRS and a less great record, I think statements of how they massively improved in the playoffs are silly.

So it really comes down to the second question of whether Kareem could do more with the Blazers than Walton did, and I'm just not confident that's the case. The Blazers benefited greatly from aspects of Walton where he's superior to Kareem - and I really think they'd have had problems playing at all the same way with a big scoring 30. So, benefit of the doubt goes to Walton there.

Now, one might also say that Kareem's proven he can provide more lift playing his way in other scenarios, and there it gets quite tough in the context of a one year snapshot. If I'm asked to give one of these the nod on the superior peak, I can't go against Kareem. However, I really have trouble giving the nod to a player every year because he once gave fantastic lift a few years back, and he's still in his prime. If I thought Kareem's peak lift was light years ahead of Walton's, I'd do it, but I actually think it's close enough I'm not entirely certain about it at all.

Erving at 3, Gilmore at 5, similar situations, I'll address together. These were the two best players in the ABA, forced to leave teams built around them and go to teams just desperate for more talent and press. They aren't having the impact they had the previous year, and yet still they're in the top 5. Erving almost leads his team to the title while "talent" supporting cast falls apart. Gilmore inherits the worst team in the league, turns them into an elite defense with a decisive winning record in a league where 50 wins are really tough to come by. Damn impressive.

Lanier takes the 4 spot. Not really that satisfied with my understanding of Lanier's game. Hard to argue for really anyone but the big 3 ahead of him though.

Honorable Mention:

Rick Barry - So what's my take on Barry? Well he's good. However, the fact that the Warriors won the title with him winning 30 was a bit of a fluke. Meaning, he took a big cut in scoring after that, and the team really didn't suffer, certainly related to his lack of efficiency while shooting. He's your best player on the floor, but he's not so amazing of a scorer that you want really him jacking up shot after shot.

Also, someone had said at one point that we need to factor in Berry's 3 point shooting ability when considering his efficiency. Meaning he'd do a lot better if they allowed 3's back then. Aside from the fact that we saw he did with the 3, and it wasn't that amazing - I think it's really important to realize that now that we're in a league with tons of 3PAs, it's really more of a role player thing, than a star thing. The open guy shoots the 3 well, and the star is never open.

Moses - Y'all realize the man finished 6th in the MVP race this year in his first year in the NBA, and on a new team? Pretty impressive.

Mo Lucas - Walton's sidekick. Fantastic player, but sanity check, not better than Artis Gilmore.

Skywalker - Got a trifecta of great players on the Nuggets. I love Bobby Jones, but I have a tough time getting passed both his relative lack of respect from contemporaries and his playing time. Issel's another candidate, but I'll take Thompson.

Hayes - Led the Wiz to a solid year.

Not in my HM - Maravich. Not sold on the guy. The classic "it was 5 against 1 out there". Look if the guy was hitting shots efficiently, that would be one thing. His whole career though is him shooting at terrible efficiency leading terribly ineffective offenses. It wasn't working - and there's a whole history of NBA basketball that tells us that even teams with modest talent can tread water just by working together as a team - I think something else should have been tried. And I think that the way his dad raised him to jack up more shots than anyone in else in history was a big part of the reason why it wasn't.

EDIT: Thought more about Lanier, moved him down to HM, bumped up Gilmore & Thompson. Two things, 1) Lanier missed 18 games this year - somehow I missed that before. Tough for me to include a non-megastar when a guy misses that much time, 2) Questions about Lanier's defense also plays into my uncertainties about the guy.

EDIT 2: Putting Bobby Jones in in place of Thompson.

[penbeast0]

Lanier v. Gilmore

I hadn't realized Gilmore had that kind of defensive impact on the Bulls. I was forced to look more closely at Lanier's defensive impact as we are running a "That was the year that wasn't 1975" game now. I had assumed that he was an average defensive center and said so; naturally the player who had Lanier replied that he was better than that, so I looked at the information available and came to the opposite conclusion.

Lanier never made the All-NBA team and his teams never achieved that much for exactly the reason that he was NOT a good defensive anchor. He didn’t work hard at it nor did he have particularly good lateral quickness or defensive footwork. Detroit had some solid defenders in their lineup in Curtis Rowe, Eric Money, etc. around Bing and Lanier but just weren’t a good defensive team in the era of the center focused offenses. Detroit’s defensive record for the 70:
1970 Walt Bellamy 5th/17
1971 Rookie Lanier splits time with defensive minded Otto Moore 5th/17
1972 Lanier takes over full time 16/17 (can see Lanier’s defensive impact!)
1973 10th/17
1974 4th/17 (where did this come from?)
1975 17th/18 (this is our year that Snake is relying on!)
1976 12/18
1977 20/22
1978 15/22
1979 18/22
1980 he split time with Kent Benson (21/22) then was dealt to Milwaukee
1982 with Benson (Laimbeer comes in 1982) 7/22 – Benson wasn’t great but was better than Lanier

I think I was wrong to say Lanier was an average center defensively. He was poor and will be abused by Artis Gilmore. It really is Al Jefferson v. Dwight Howard.

I will look again at post merger Chicago. If Gilmore's defensive impact is that large, I may move him into the top 5 ahead of Lanier.

[Doctor MJ]

Interesting, I'll think on that further.

Also, for those not aware, Gilmore's switch of teams was a really big deal. He played for the Kentucky Colonels, a very successful franchise with very strong attendance and financial state. There was no reason the Colonels shouldn't have been added to the NBA except that the Chicago Bulls fought tooth and nail to keep them out. Why? Because the Bulls owned the NBA rights to Gilmore, and were desperate to have him. What ended up happening is that the Colonels sold Gilmore to the Bulls, sold the rest of their players to other teams for a lot less money, and then the owner bought the Buffalo franchise which he late "traded" (not sure how that worked exactly) for the Boston Celtics.

[Optimism Prime]

Man, talk about a tough year to choose.

On the one hand, you've got Kareem at the height of his powers, putting up 26/13/4/3 on league-best FG% of .579. And then somehow raising his game to the tune of 35/18/4/3.5 on .607. Ran away with the MVP award, then got swept by Walton's Blazers--despite outplaying the big redhead.

On the other hand, there's Walton, a transcendent player who lifted his teammates' games similar to what we've seen 08 Garnett and 05 Nash do. 19/14/4/3 on .528 in the RS, to 18/15/5.5/3 on .507 in the playoffs. I was stunned--but not surprised given everything I've heard about him--that he had more assists in the playoffs than anyone else. Wow.

I reached for my copy of "The Book of Basketball," to read what Simmons says about them both in the Pyramid, but opened the book to his "Wine Cellar" of players forming the best team possible. Lo and behold, he's got both '77 Kareem and '77 Walton. Wow. I'm a big Simmons fan (hatersgonnahate.gif), but at the same time... it's telling that he tagged these two guys to form his center tandem. Here's some of what he said about them (quotes about '76-77 in bold).

Simmons on Kareem:

"He played for six championship teams. He reached eleven Finals and fourteen conference finals. His teams averaged 56 wins per season, dipped below .500 just twice and finished with a .600-plus winning percentage sixteen times... Wilt never dealt with anything approaching Kareem's **** sandwich in the 1970s, when his only elite teammates were Oscar ('71 and '72), Dandridge ('71 through '75) and Jamaal Wilkes ('78 and '79). From '73 through '79, Kareem didn't play with a single All-star or elite point guard... When he dragged the '77 Lakers to the Western Finals without Kermit Washington and Lucius Allen (both injured), his crunch-time teammates were four piddling swingmen (Cazzie Russell, Earl Tatum, Don Chaney and Don Ford, with no rebounder or point guard to be seen. In round 2, they beat a Warriors team that featured Rick Barry, Gus Williams, Jamaal Wilkes, Phil Smith and a Center combo of Clifford Ray and rookie Robert Parish..."

From the wine cellar chapter: "For the center spot, I can't hold grudges with the future of the world at stake. I need the surest two points of all time. I need the sky hook. I need Kareem... That's our starting five: '86 Bird, '03 Duncan, '85 Magic, '92 Jordan and '77 Kareem. You cannot assemble a better five-man unit of modern guys."

Simmons on Walton:

"For that one transcendent year when we catch lightning in a bottle with him, I am guaranteed a title as long as I flank him with a good rebounder, a decent shooter and quick guards. How many players guaranteed you an NBA title? Jordan, Bird, Magic, Russell, Kareem, Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq, Moses, Wilt (if his head was on straight), Mikan (as long as it was the early fifties)... really, that's the whole list. Walton cracked that group for one magical year, prevailing with the worst supporting cast of any post-merger champion: Mo Lucas, Lionel Hollins, Bobby Gross, Johnny Davis, Dave Twardzik, Lloyd Neal and that's about it. For eleven months from March 29, 1977 to March 1, 1978, including the '77 playoffs, Portland finished 70-15 during an especially competitive era. And everything--everything--ran through Walton. Maybe some centers were better in specific areas, but none was the best passer, rebounder, shot blocker, outlet passer, defensive anchor, crunch-time scorer, emotional leader and undisputed "guy we revolve our offense around" for their team at the same time." (Yeah, pretty much his whole section on Walton was about '76-'78. Too bad his career was cut short.)

Wine cellar: "No modern center had a greater effect on his teammates. We want a combination rebounder, shot blocker and passer who would be overjoyed to join forces with the greatest collection of talent ever assembled."

I can go either way on this. I'd love to see if it'd be possible for me to split the first/second votes and give them each 8.5 points, because I'm worried that it'll be close enough one ballot will be the deciding factor... but that's not the purpose of the project.

So yeah. I'm pretty much to flipping a coin at this point. This really is the hardest call I've made in this project.

I have to go with Kareem. I'm looking at their advanced stats, and it's not even close. I know that Walton was injured and only played 65 games, and he had a respectable 10.2 WS. Kareem's were 11.9 on offense alone plus another 5.9 on defense. Even in the playoffs, where Walton had more games and more wins, it was close: 2.5 total for Walton; 2.3 OWS for Kareem... on a 32.4 PER ("only" good for fourth all-time).

According to WS, Kareem's offense was more valuable than Walton's season.

I know that advanced stats aren't the deciding factor, especially when it relates to Walton, but... they do matter some to me. I love this quote from Henry Abbott's TrueHoop blog--it pretty much sums up my views on the matter. "Stats, meanwhile, can watch every game every night, and from all that data they can find an increasingly useful bunch of data."

So, my ballot:

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Bil Walton

(Again, they'd be 1A and 1B if I had that option. Alas. Forsooth.)

3. Julius Erving
4. Bob Lanier

If they'd played a similar number of games in the PS, I could see those two flip-flopping; as it is, Erving's team just went a whole lot farther, and his numbers shot up too.

5. Pete Maravich--that 31/5/5 is impressive, even if the shooting percentage is painful.

Jesus/Mohammed/Buddha/GreatSpaghettiMonster, this was tough. I'm mentally exhausted from having to choose, but there's my ballot. The end. Good night.

[Optimism Prime]

So it really comes down to the second question of whether Kareem could do more with the Blazers than Walton did, and I'm just not confident that's the case. The Blazers benefited greatly from aspects of Walton where he's superior to Kareem - and I really think they'd have had problems playing at all the same way with a big scoring 30. So, benefit of the doubt goes to Walton there.

Playing devil's advocate with this bit: let's reverse the question too.

Could Walton do more with the Lakers than Kareem did?

[ronnymac2]

Man, Mcginnis sucked in the playoffs so much that I'm not even going to capitalize the g in his last name. Nice of him to show up in game six of the finals after the damage was done.

Good to see Doug Collins had a solid Finals. He's cool.

Both Erving and Walton were fantastic, making this even more difficult. They are the players in the running for my number two spot.


Hmmmm...some quality depth here. I'm taking out Cowens, White, Hondo, Frazier, Mcginnis, Westphal, Gervin, Moses, and Gilmore.

Hondo is old, and Frazier has started to decline. Still a good player though. Mcginnis was just horrible in the playoffs. I mean....Joe Johnson-esque type of decline from REG SEA to playoffs. Gervin needs to be a super-duper scorer for me to consider him anytime. He didn't do that this year. Moses is a force on the glass and can score a little, but he's not elite yet. I don't understand how he was sixth in MVP voting. Cowens missing 32 games is borderline bad for him. He's getting underrated in this thread, but he clearly WAS declining and wasn't recognized by others and doesn't have the best advanced stats. White isn't at this level. Westphal is a very good player, but not at this elite level. Not feeling Gilmore, despite the great defense.

Spots four and five are up for grabs. The contenders are Hayes, Maravich, Thompson, Lanier, and Barry.

My problem with Wes Unseld is that he simple doesn't produce enough right now. I'm one of the biggest backers of looking at a player's effect on the game instead of just raw stats, but still....you need to produce a little something.

Lanier was a monster at C, and did what he was supposed to do against GSW's frontcourt in the playoffs.

I'm not feeling Thompson. He wasn't quite what he'd be a year later. Still a contender though.

Maravich's 30/5/5 season was spectacular. This is really the only year where he was recognized ito all-nba teams and mvp voting. Why is that? If anybody knows, what was special about this year?

Hayes was a solid 24/12/2/50%/very good defense big man on a good team.

Barry killed it in the playoffs. I'm a big fan of his game. He may have been as ass, but he had the balls to win games by himself.

This should be good. Only sure thing is that KAJ is first and Walton and Erving will be next in some order.

[Doctor MJ]

So it really comes down to the second question of whether Kareem could do more with the Blazers than Walton did, and I'm just not confident that's the case. The Blazers benefited greatly from aspects of Walton where he's superior to Kareem - and I really think they'd have had problems playing at all the same way with a big scoring 30. So, benefit of the doubt goes to Walton there.

Playing devil's advocate with this bit: let's reverse the question too.

Could Walton do more with the Lakers than Kareem did?

Ah, I'm glad you brought that up. I consider that not as a co-tiebreaker, but as the next tiebreaker down. That probably didn't make any sense, I'll try again.

First I want to see who gave the most lift to their team. I'll adjust some for how good the team is, but that's not all that relevant here because Walton had more team success *and* gave more lift. (If you disagree with that fine, but obviously then you're probably already decided on Kareem)

Second I want to see if the guy not giving as much lift, would give greater lift if he was in the other guy's place. After all, it's just silly to be giving Player A an award for best player if no matter what the situation is Player B would do better.

If I got a clear lift-winner after that, I'm done. Otherwise, I'll give the nod to the guy I think would do better in the not-as-good situation. Why am I fine not looking at this? Well because the fact of the matter is that any player, no matter how good, can be put in a situation where he isn't used well - and there's an infinite number of ways that could happen. I don't find it all that informative to try to understand them all. You may see my rubric and think it seems quite arbitrary (I'm sure many people do), but to me the alternative is to try to imagine all the different possibilities and then rate them all in some way, which to me seems much more subjective and unsatisfying.

[shawngoat23]

1. Bill Walton
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Julius Erving
4. Bob Lanier
5. Bobby Jones

Top 4 should be no surprise, but I should try to justify Walton at #1 over Kareem. It's just a feeling that as dominant as Kareem was, prime Walton really had intangibles like few others and did things that went beyond the statsheet (where Kareem has a pretty big advantage). How do you really quantify the effects of his defensive presence, his rebounding, the quick points he generates on the outlet passes; his ability to set screens, facilitate easy buckets with his passing ability in the half court, or to stretch the defense in the high post while still providing a strong defensive presence? Well, the statistics we do have on how his team performed with him and without him really suggest that he made a tremendous difference in this regard, and his Blazers went on to take the championship, so I think he definitely has a strong case at #1 (as does Kareem, who is certainly one of the GOAT players ever). I would say Walton's impact is Russell-esque, but he's really just a classical human being who defies comparison to anyone in the history of Western civilization.

On a similar note, I went with Bobby Jones at #5 because no one really jumped out at me, so I decided to reward someone who has great intangibles (and an old school player that I really happen to like, so I admit some bias here). This might seem to be a dubious inclusion because he wouldn't be able to carry the offensive load that a "normal" top 5 player would, and admittedly, I didn't have him on my radar to begin the voting. However, DavidStern did point out that he was arguably the best player on the second-best team in the league, and his advanced statistics are actually quite impressive; add to the fact that his impact comes more from his intangibles and defense, which aren't really captured statistically, and I feel better about giving him some love at the #5 spot in a year where I don't feel anyone else made a strong case.

[penbeast0]

ACtually do think Walton would do more with the Lakers. Nixon, Hudson, Dantley, Wilkes . . . those are all good offensive players who could carry a greater offensive load, where they fall is defense (Hudson and Dantley) and rebounding (Wilkes as a PF) plus someone to pull them together and make them work as a team. Those are Walton's strengths.

[Optimism Prime]

So it really comes down to the second question of whether Kareem could do more with the Blazers than Walton did, and I'm just not confident that's the case. The Blazers benefited greatly from aspects of Walton where he's superior to Kareem - and I really think they'd have had problems playing at all the same way with a big scoring 30. So, benefit of the doubt goes to Walton there.

Playing devil's advocate with this bit: let's reverse the question too.

Could Walton do more with the Lakers than Kareem did?

Ah, I'm glad you brought that up. I consider that not as a co-tiebreaker, but as the next tiebreaker down.

Why am I fine not looking at this? Well because the fact of the matter is that any player, no matter how good, can be put in a situation where he isn't used well - and there's an infinite number of ways that could happen. I don't find it all that informative to try to understand them all. You may see my rubric and think it seems quite arbitrary (I'm sure many people do), but to me the alternative is to try to imagine all the different possibilities and then rate them all in some way, which to me seems much more subjective and unsatisfying.

No, valid point. I think we can all agree that Walton and Kareem both did a lot with a little, it's just varying degrees of "who did more" and "who had less." This year was insane; there's no wrong answer for number one/number two as long as they have those two in some order*. I put Kareem first last night, but I'm afraid if I thought more about it today I'd switch my voting. Like I said--I could have flipped a coin and been fine with that.



*Only one ballot doesn't thus far. I personally feel that this may be an instance where the long-stated "I would encourage every voter to give some explanations while they do their voting - but particularly if you have a top 5 that deviates strongly with the norm and you haven't expressed your thoughts on it earlier in the thread" should come into effect. Should we maybe do a show of hands on this? If others don't have a problem, then it's no biggie. I'm just concerned that rote application of a voting mechanism doesn't make for an honest vote in a year this close.

As admirable as sticking to your guns this much is... I think it's confusing your vote.

Look at the following two resumes for this year, and tell me who really has a better case if we ignore a 1-3 upset--which is pretty damn close anyways, not like a 2-7 upset--by a team that had a better SRS against a team suffering from injuries.

5th in MVP voting, 4th in Win Shares, 1st in Playoff Win Shares, 2nd in Win Shares PER 48 Minutes in the playoffs, 2nd in playoff PER.

League MVP, 1st in PER, 1st in Win Shares, 1st in Win Shares PER 48 Minutes, 2nd in playoff Win Shares, 1st in Win Shares PER 48 Minutes, 1st in Playoff PER, 1st Team All NBA and 2nd Team All Defense

[Optimism Prime]

ACtually do think Walton would do more with the Lakers. Nixon, Hudson, Dantley, Wilkes . . . those are all good offensive players who could carry a greater offensive load, where they fall is defense (Hudson and Dantley) and rebounding (Wilkes as a PF) plus someone to pull them together and make them work as a team. Those are Walton's strengths.

That roster is 77-78. What could Walton have done with Cazzie Russell, Lucius Allen (injured), Earl Tatum, Don Ford, Kermit Washington (injured)...?

Keep in mind, in the playoffs, Walton's next leading rebounder had 9.9, and had three teammates with 4+ apg. For Kareem it was 5.3 and one.

[Sedale Threatt]

I would say Walton's impact is Russell-esque, but he's really just a classical human being who defies comparison to anyone in the history of Western civilization.

[Sedale Threatt]

ACtually do think Walton would do more with the Lakers. Nixon, Hudson, Dantley, Wilkes . . . those are all good offensive players who could carry a greater offensive load, where they fall is defense (Hudson and Dantley) and rebounding (Wilkes as a PF) plus someone to pull them together and make them work as a team. Those are Walton's strengths.

A couple of things. One, three of those guys weren't even on this team. Two, Kareem was an equivalent rebounder and every bit as good a defender as Walton, so how much difference would the Red Head make in these areas? Kareem wasn't nearly the same playmaker, true, but it's not like he was Moses Malone.

Also, this can't be stressed enough -- Walton was incredibly fortunate to have an enforcer like Maurice Lucas next to him. Bill though enough of Luke that he named a son after him, which turned out to be an incredible insult to Maurice. As Simmons mentioned it in the excerpt from his book, the presence of a powerful rebounder/physical presence -- Lucas was a forerunner of the modern PF -- was a critical ingredient to Portland's success.

Kareem never had anything close to that during the four seasons before Magic showed up. At least, not for an entire season. Before their frontcourt was decimated, the Lakers were looking like a legit contender. If they'd stayed healthy, then we'd have a legit comparison.

[Sedale Threatt]

One thing before I vote -- this is a pretty textbook difference between "Best Player" / "Best Season". Kareem was the better pure player by dominating across the board, in just about every way imaginable, Walton had the better season by powering his team to the title in a way few players have. In some years I've voted one way, in others another, and I wish I'd been more consistent. That said...

1. Abdul-Jabbar. Like most everybody else, I could have easily gone with Bill. In just about any other season, I would have. I truly do appreciate the effort everybody has put into the past couple of threads; the discourse has been fantastic.

That said, I was probably always going to vote for Kareem. Not necessarily because I'm a Lakers fan -- although I only caught Kareem on the very back end of his career, when it was a semi big deal when he scored 20 points -- but because of my sheer respect for him.

If he hadn't contributed to so many other championship teams, or Bill had pulled more teams together in such magical fashion (true, he didn't get the opportunity, but still) then I might be more willing to consider Walton.

I just think Kareem was a flat-out better player, in every area but one. So he couldn't make chicken salad out of chicken isht. If you give them equivalent teams that suit their respective strengths, I'm fairly confident Kareem comes out on top 75 percent of the time. I just think his greatness tends to be taken for granted -- not necessarily here, but in general.

Like the Krikorian quote I posted earlier: People forget.

2. Walton. Spectacular. I have nothing negative to say about him. He gave you everything you could ask for from a center. Bill Russell's heir as the ultimate team player. As stated, he'd be No. 1 in just about any other year. I just don't think he was as good as Kareem was. It's pretty much that simple for me.

The dropoff is so significant from there I feel like stopping.

3. Erving. Dr. J, pretty much at his peak. The Sixers choked in the Finals, but he at least went down with both guns blazing.

4. Lanier. I'm as guilty of this as anyone, but this guy doesn't get his just due at all. Should have been part of the Top 50.

5. Gilmore. Never been a huge fan of his, but the numbers speak for themselves.

[JordansBulls]

Another thing people forget is that Walton had to play an extra round as well. The #1 and #2 seeds didn't play the 1st round. So pretty much you had a worn down playing against Kareem.

Not to mention Walton beat the 3 teams that had the best records in the league (Denver, LA and Philly)

That in itself should propel him to #1.

[Optimism Prime]

Another thing people forget is that Walton had to play an extra round as well. The #1 and #2 seeds didn't play the 1st round. So pretty much you had a worn down playing against Kareem.

Not to mention Walton beat the 3 teams that had the best records in the league (Denver, LA and Philly)

That in itself should propel him to #1.

Regular season: Walton, 65 games; Kareem 82.

And we're making a big fuss about an extra 3 games played by Walton?

Walton played three more minutes overall, regular and post-season combined than Kareem did in the regular season.

Who's worn down here?!

EDIT: For the record, I have no problem with you putting Walton at #1; it's perfectly justifiable. I'm just confused how Kareem is at #3.

[JordansBulls]

Dr J had the 2nd best record but still managed to win 2 games and Dr J's numbers in the finals were awesome as well.

30 PPG / 7 RPG / 5 APG / ~ 3 SPG on 54% FG

Whereas with the Lakers with the best record in the league, didn't even manage to win 1 game in the series.

Has a team ever had the best record in the league and got swept in a series?

[TrueLAfan]

Another thing people forget is that Walton had to play an extra round as well. The #1 and #2 seeds didn't play the 1st round. So pretty much you had a worn down playing against Kareem.

Not to mention Walton beat the 3 teams that had the best records in the league (Denver, LA and Philly)

That in itself should propel him to #1.

I don't have anythingthing againt having Walton over Kareem (I voted Walton ahead in 1978), but this is pretty much ridiculous reasoning. I'm kind of thinking that the guy who played 800 minutes less during the regular seaosns and had a great PF playing alongside that was able to help out on double teams against opposing big men in the playoffs might not be able to make a claim of being "worn down." As Sports Illustrated said:

In all fairness to Abdul-Jabbar, he had spent the better part of three games—and would spend yet one more—exhausting himself by bounding up and down and all over the court attempting to deflect the rafter heaves of Lucas as well as those of greyhounds Lionel Hollins and Johnny Davis, who had slithered through or simply zipped around the pitiful Laker backcourt defenders. When Abdul-Jabbar ran down, Portland would counter his weakened offensive efforts by placing Walton in front of him, Lucas behind him and two or three or 15 other Blazers swarming around him on all sides.

And the Blazers with Walton had the highest winning percentage in the league. There was no question who had the best team in the Western Conference in 1977.