Retro Player of the Year Project

[ThaRegul8r]

Yeah I'm definitely predicting Russell beats MJ's 9.6, dunno where Kareem ends up but I think they'll be 1 and 2. I think the key for Russel is he'll almost never dip below .650+. He'll get beat by Pettit his title year, Wilt in 67, Cousy his rookie season. But he'll still get almost all the 2nd place votes these years which is good for .650+. I guess Wilt and Oscar's early 60s stats years will get votes matching him, but again, he'll probably get as many #1s in these years as #3s so he'll still be .650 at worst. .650 * 13 = 8.45 in its own and of course half his seasons he's getting a lot more than .650. 59 is a 1.000, then there's 68 and 69 where he ate Wilt's soul and a hell lot more title years where even if he loses out to Wilt's stats (something I doubt), it'll be "7 1st place votes, 15 2nd place votes" type ballots

Depends though because you look at 1968 Russell wasn't even top 20 in PER and was #16 in Win Shares not to mention wasn't top 5 in MVP voting either.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... aders.html

So coaching a team to the second-best record in the division and third best in the league, leading a team back from a 3-1 deficit—unprecedented at the time—and he and John Havlicek being Boston's best performers in the NBA Finals means nothing now?

[JordansBulls]

Looks like Moses will do worse in this competition than where he's usually ranked on our lists. 3.5 has him 9th right now with Kareem, Erving, Russell, Mikan, West, Oscar lurking + Hondo, Cowens, Cousy, Baylor having shots.

Makes sense, he had a high peak, but lasted way too short. Just 79-83, really. He's the anti Karl Malone, fittingly. Looks to me like the two Malones will switch places from where we normally rank them (Moses in the 10-13 mix, Karl 15ish)

I've actually curios on how Walt Frazier does. I have him picked a few times as #1.


The link to show the reference to ABA/NBA combined.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1004743&start=721

Oh here is the guy who provides no analysis to anything.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1042101&start=83 - 1977
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1038315&start=103 - 1980
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1021572&start=47 - 1987
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1020700&start=104 - 1988
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1019399&start=105 - 1990
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1019399 - Your original post
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1018243&start=89 - 1991
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1014424&start=210 - 1996
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1013034&start=91 - 1998
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1011634&start=114 - 2000

[JordansBulls]

Yeah I'm definitely predicting Russell beats MJ's 9.6, dunno where Kareem ends up but I think they'll be 1 and 2. I think the key for Russel is he'll almost never dip below .650+. He'll get beat by Pettit his title year, Wilt in 67, Cousy his rookie season. But he'll still get almost all the 2nd place votes these years which is good for .650+. I guess Wilt and Oscar's early 60s stats years will get votes matching him, but again, he'll probably get as many #1s in these years as #3s so he'll still be .650 at worst. .650 * 13 = 8.45 in its own and of course half his seasons he's getting a lot more than .650. 59 is a 1.000, then there's 68 and 69 where he ate Wilt's soul and a hell lot more title years where even if he loses out to Wilt's stats (something I doubt), it'll be "7 1st place votes, 15 2nd place votes" type ballots

Depends though because you look at 1968 Russell wasn't even top 20 in PER and was #16 in Win Shares not to mention wasn't top 5 in MVP voting either.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... aders.html

So coaching a team to the second-best record in the division and third best in the league, leading a team back from a 3-1 deficit—unprecedented at the time—and he and John Havlicek being Boston's best performers in the NBA Finals means nothing now?

Never said that, I just stated he might not get #1 based on those parameters. Basically his regular season was not strong enough to rank him #1 that year. For the playoffs he could be considered #1 though. We will have to wait until we get to that season.

[JordansBulls]

I just can't justify ranking another player ahead of a player in that season if a player ended up winning both the Season and Finals MVP. To me that should be virtually unanimous. If Finals MVP wasn't around then winning League MVP and the Title the same year should put a player at the #1 spot.

Examples:

1961 Bill Russell
1962 Bill Russell
1963 Bill Russell
1965 Bill Russell
1967 Wilt Chamberlain
1968 Connie Hawkins (ABA)


Finals MVP's available

1970 Willis Reed
1971 Kareem
1974 Julius Erving (ABA) - No Finals MVP Available
1976 Julius Erving (ABA) - No Finals MVP Available
1980 Kareem
1983 Moses Malone
1984 Larry Bird
1986 Larry Bird
1987 Magic Johnson
1991 Michael Jordan
1992 Michael Jordan
1994 Hakeem Olajuwon
1996 Michael Jordan
1998 Michael Jordan
2000 Shaquille O'neal
2003 Tim Duncan

[ronnymac2]

This may be a dumb question, but.....at any point in this project, could we as voters take a look at all-star games to get a feel for how certain players performed in certain years? I only ask because I'm pretty sure that they actually cared about all-star games back then (like...mostly the 60's). So everybody tried hard.

I recognize that it is only one game, and that even if taken seriously by the players, it is an exhibition. It has no value to any team. It won't help you win a title. A player can just get hot and lead the team in scoring.

But if somebody has an all-time all-star game performance, or if a big sets a rebound record or a small controlls the action in a game filled with superstars, and we know the context of the performance, does it matter at all?

Feel free to call it a dumb question. Just wondering. haha

[Doctor MJ]

ronny, I think it's fine if you want to look into all-star game performances. I haven't felt it's that important in the past, but I wouldn't mind hearing some analysis on them.

[ElGee]

ronny, did you have this one in mind? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR9M38V3Buc

[Dr Positivity]

This is a random thing to point out, but Dwyane Wade is going to do pretty damn well on this list. He's still a solid #15 and there's really not many big number guys left. Russell, Wilt, Oscar, West, Mikan, Pettit will pass him, then Cousy, Baylor, Cowens, Havlicek should get some decent scores, but dunno if they'll get above 2.2. I think Wade ends up somewhere like 22nd-24th. And assuming the Heat tear up the next era, he's going to keep going upwards. He is definitely a historically good player

[Sedale Threatt]

A very fair spot, in my opinion. Other than Jordan, Kobe and West, I'm not coming up with any better SGs.

[Doctor MJ]

This is a random thing to point out, but Dwyane Wade is going to do pretty damn well on this list. He's still a solid #15 and there's really not many big number guys left. Russell, Wilt, Oscar, West, Mikan, Pettit will pass him, then Cousy, Baylor, Cowens, Havlicek should get some decent scores, but dunno if they'll get above 2.2. I think Wade ends up somewhere like 22nd-24th. And assuming the Heat tear up the next era, he's going to keep going upwards. He is definitely a historically good player

Something I've noticed, having been involved in a variety of PC board projects over the years, is that young players tend to surprise people with how much they've done. There's a natural tendency to put them below older inferior players and say "lacks longevity, he'll eventually move up" without realizing that the young player has already surpassed the older players in major accolades.

Part of it is that people like to think that they aren't applying some formula that lets a guy move up based on every little accolade earned - so another or two finishes with the young player doing more of what he was already doing, and they don't go back and re-evaluate their list.

[ronnymac2]

ronny, did you have this one in mind? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR9M38V3Buc

I did not. I had actually forgotten about this. I watched some of it a long time ago.

I was thinking more about Oscar being able to control the superstars and win All-star MVP's, Pettit going crazy on the glass, and Jerry West hitting huge shots over KAJ and/or Wilt in the fourth quarter (Warspite said something about an all-star that ended like that once).

Those all-star games might be valuable, too. Get to see how the ABA players back then stack up in their matchups against the NBA players. We have to judge two leagues now, so being able to compare the best of one to the best of the other is integral.

Doc- It probably isn't important, but it can't hurt.

[penbeast0]

One guy I am very surprised I have been voting for is Dave Cowens. I think I had always assumed that Havlicek was the key to those Celtics and Cowens the second banana. However, when I actually looked closely, Cowens was clearly the superior statistical player to Havlicek every year -- he was getting as many points on equivalent efficiency, nearly as many assists and about 10 extra rebounds a game (plus his defense was outstanding too). I guess because Havlicek was always competing in my mind with other SFs while Cowens was competing with other centers, I had this idea that Havlicek was putting up bigger numbers.

Am curious what will happen in the 60s. Not with Wilt v. Russell -- the numbers guys will go with Wilt and the ring guys with Russell -- but with Russell v. Baylor, Oscar, Pettit etc. for the people that put Wilt first.

[Manuel Calavera]

I'll be putting Wilt #1 practically every year, and Russell #2. I don't buy that Russell wasn't a great player and that he's just required to be on top 5-10 lists because he won a 11 rings. He was a great great player who I think is the fourth greatest player of all-time.

[ElGee]

I'll be putting Wilt #1 practically every year, and Russell #2. I don't buy that Russell wasn't a great player and that he's just required to be on top 5-10 lists because he won a 11 rings. He was a great great player who I think is the fourth greatest player of all-time.

I'm curious, why would you take that blanket stance without looking at the individual seasons, given how much change there is in Chamberlain's style from, say, 60-66 compared to 67-73?

[Manuel Calavera]

I am taking into account every year, I just feel that regardless of what playstyle Chamberlain adapted himself to play he was still the best player in the league (at least until about ~1970). I haven't made up my mind though, I'm just strongly leaning in that direction for most years.

[Doctor MJ]

I am taking into account every year, I just feel that regardless of what playstyle Chamberlain adapted himself to play he was still the best player in the league (at least until about ~1970). I haven't made up my mind though, I'm just strongly leaning in that direction for most years.

I hope you do. I don't see any problem with someone having Wilt well ahead of Russell - putting Russell below West and Oscar wouldn't bother me either. (Not saying that's my opinion, just that I can see the argument)

However, Wilt had a penchant for his team's just crashing and burning (I don't know how Wilt's even a contender in '62-63 or '64-65), and in Russell's final year Wilt didn't seem to make the Lakers better at all. Whether or not Russell's your #1 in those years, it seems to me it should be someone other than Wilt.

[ThaRegul8r]

I am taking into account every year, I just feel that regardless of what playstyle Chamberlain adapted himself to play he was still the best player in the league (at least until about ~1970). I haven't made up my mind though, I'm just strongly leaning in that direction for most years.

I hope you do. I don't see any problem with someone having Wilt well ahead of Russell - putting Russell below West and Oscar wouldn't bother me either.

Wait 'til we get to the year Oscar won MVP over Russell.

[JordansBulls]

I'll be putting Wilt #1 practically every year, and Russell #2. I don't buy that Russell wasn't a great player and that he's just required to be on top 5-10 lists because he won a 11 rings. He was a great great player who I think is the fourth greatest player of all-time.

Well a few years I don't think there is much of a debate. 1961 and 1963 Russell should finish over Wilt. Not only did Russell win MVP but he won the title while in 1961 Wilt's team was out to a team below .500 and in 1963 didn't even make the playoffs.
Other years you may be able to justify, but not those 2 years.

[Doctor MJ]

I am taking into account every year, I just feel that regardless of what playstyle Chamberlain adapted himself to play he was still the best player in the league (at least until about ~1970). I haven't made up my mind though, I'm just strongly leaning in that direction for most years.

I hope you do. I don't see any problem with someone having Wilt well ahead of Russell - putting Russell below West and Oscar wouldn't bother me either.

Wait 'til we get to the year Oscar won MVP over Russell.

Will be a fascinating year. To me that's the year that Russell really clinches himself as a GOAT candidate ("Good luck winning without a great point guard like Cousy! Oh, wait you did it, and you were the point guard!"). On the other hand, that's a year where I have a hard time saying Wilt wasn't used in a smart way, because the great Alex Hannum took over and made massive changes from the previous year, which resulted in massive improvement. And then there's Oscar, who I'm not as sold on, but I'll have to give a solid look to.

[Manuel Calavera]

I am taking into account every year, I just feel that regardless of what playstyle Chamberlain adapted himself to play he was still the best player in the league (at least until about ~1970). I haven't made up my mind though, I'm just strongly leaning in that direction for most years.

I hope you do. I don't see any problem with someone having Wilt well ahead of Russell - putting Russell below West and Oscar wouldn't bother me either. (Not saying that's my opinion, just that I can see the argument)

However, Wilt had a penchant for his team's just crashing and burning (I don't know how Wilt's even a contender in '62-63 or '64-65), and in Russell's final year Wilt didn't seem to make the Lakers better at all. Whether or not Russell's your #1 in those years, it seems to me it should be someone other than Wilt.

In all cases there's some justification as to why Wilt's teams didn't win the championship and there are few years where replacing Wilt with another center like Kareem or Russell would have improved the teams record. The teams he played on for the most part were poorly built and/or poorly coached and nobody was good enough to win a championship with that team. My criteria has been the same since I started and that is I ask myself who played the best basketball that year. I don't ask myself who fit better with their team or who managed to play against a team with a positional disadvantage at the position that the player plays at. If I wanted to win a championship that season which player would I pick (a top 5) knowing how well he can play, when he's going to get injured, how well will he fit in with the team etc. And there are few years where I think a player outplayed Wilt.

I might actually go with Wilt #1 in 1973 ironically because True brought up that Kareem had an injured elbow which means based on my criteria I can't rely on Kareem knowing he'll get injured. Originally I was going to chalk Kareem playing poorly to him playing against Thurmond (and I probably mostly am anyway) but now that I know he was injured too I might pick Chamberlain. But Kareem will probably be my #1 from 71-72.