Retro POY '75-76 (Voting Complete)

[Sedale Threatt]

...

It's not that I'm skeptical about Walton. I think he had a phenomenal season, with phenomenal results, and could have easily voted him first in just about any other season.

It's just that when you wade into the arena of intangibles, it's easy to exagerrate. For example, I think Magic Johnson was off the charts in this area. I also think he was blessed like few players ever have been in terms of supporting casts.

That wasn't the case with Bill, obviously. But I also think that team fit him almost as well as he fit them, if that makes any sense.

At any rate, that's not necessarily the debate. I was just curious what others thought about Bill's season in comparison to Erving's, since Kareem seems to have been almost as spectacular in 76 as he was in 77, if not more so.

Obviously, they're hugely different players. I totally agree about your description of Dr. J as a classic do-it-all superstar. Like I've said numerous times -- the numbers speak for themselves. I'm just thinking that if there's a possibility that he wasn't better than Walton, and I picked Kareem in that comparison, why wouldn't I do the same here?

The big difference, as semi pointed out, we don't have the head-to-head matchup, or even a dominant series like the one Kareem had against G.S. for that matter. So it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Even less considering the massive difference in numbers and styles between Walton and Erving.

I'm just curious what everybody else thinks about pure impact.

[ElGee]

They didn't remove 17 shots a night from a post weapon though. Kareem's role got lesser, but he was still scoring 17ppg on 12.7 shots a game, which is 20ppg on 14.6 shots per 36, and doing it on 54% shooting. That still makes him a certifable offensive weapon - and "option in the network" teams had to guard, which made it more difficult to concentrate on the perimeter guys. Kareem wasn't the centerpiece anymore and taking 4 FG a game less, but was still a big offensive contributer.

Noteably the Lakers offense was still really good in 90 and 89 (when Kareem was mad old). But that's a big gap in years to compare...

Literally, you're correct. Although I think it's a fairly clear and precipitous decline after 1986. He's down to 23 minutes and 9 shots per game by 89. He then retires. Nothing seems to happen. The Lakers ORtg (w/out someone really "replacing" his role) goes:

1986 113.3 (+6.1)
1987 115.6 (+7.3)
1988 113.1 (+5.1)
1989 113.8 (+6.0)
1990 114.0 (+5.9)
1991 112.1 (+4.2)

PLAYOFFS
1986 115.6
1987 119.9
1988 114.1
1989 115.8
1990 112.7
1991 111.7

The point is not that from 86-90 the removal of his post scoring is irrelevant. The point -- or question, really -- is if that type of statistical contribution is so intuitively good, why doesn't it hold more value in the results of the team offense?

In other words, maybe that type of "option in the network" isn't as valuable in certain settings as the statistics would suggest. For example, I think they missed that option more in the postseason when the game slowed down. Similarly, I think Kareem's offensive game would carry more value today than it did in the 70s.

[Sedale Threatt]

In the name of fairness, here are some comments about the NBA/ABA rivalry from Loose Balls:

Bob Ryan: The NBA felt that the ABA played no defense, certainly no team defense as it was known in the NBA. You could drive down the middle and do what you wanted beause they had no real centers until Artis Gilmore. At least, that was the opinion until we started playing exhibition games.

The view in the NBA was, we'll show you guys. But then you know what happened -- the ABA won as often as the NBA did. So the NBA took a different tack. They said, "Well, those were exhibitions to us, while the ABA was playhing them like the playoff finals. Besides, a lot of the games were in ABA arenas."

I distinctly recall a game where the Nets beat the Celtics on Rick Barry's 3-pointer at the buzzer. Barry didn't surprise me, but Billy Paultz did. I considered him just another nobody ABA center, but he showed no respect for Bill Cowens. Rebounded over Cowens, scored on Cowens. I started to wonder if I had dismissed the ABA too quickly.

Larry Brown: When we beat them in the exhibition games, the NBA said they weren't up for them. Come on. Tommy Heinsohn would say they weren't playing to win and we were, but I'd check the box scores and see that Tommy played his regulars 35 to 40 minutes, so what does that tell you.

Ryan: Those games were intense. Dave Cowens was ejected one time for punting a basketball. In another game, Tom Heinsohn got seven technical fouls. I respected the individual talent, but I never saw an ABA team play defense like the NBA did. Maybe I didn't want to see it. So I refused to take the league seriously. Then came the merger, and Denver and San Antonio won division titles. What could I say?

Unfortunately, that is about it in terms of substances.

[Sedale Threatt]

In other words, maybe that type of "option in the network" isn't as valuable in certain settings as the statistics would suggest. For example, I think they missed that option more in the postseason when the game slowed down. Similarly, I think Kareem's offensive game would carry more value today than it did in the 70s.

I agree; look no further to Hakeem Olajuwon circa the mid-90s, or prime Tim Duncan as to what kind of impact Kareem would have in the modern, 3-point based game.

You've got some interesting stuff that can't be easily dimissed. Some thoughts that popped into my head while looking at it:

1. We're looking at 38-41 year old Kareem. At an age when most players have been retired for four or five years, he was still good enough to dominate Finals games on occasion. But not even close to what he was in his prime, especially as a defender/rebounder. In other words, what does any of this have to do with the era we're talking about?

2. Although his numbers might have been impressive for a couple of years in there, they had already begun phasing him out as early as 87. And it wasn't just a couple of guys picking up the slack, either.

We have the obvious ones with Magic, who turned into a legitimately great post-up player, as well as Worthy and Scott. But so did Cooper, who went from change-of-pace sparkplug to arguably the best backup PG in the game, as well as the addition of guys like Thompson, who was still a very credible scorer, and A.C. Green, who was surprisingly good despite having hands of concrete.

Those last two guys were combining for about 22 ppg on nearly 60 TS% in Kareem's final season.

So from where I'm looking at it, there are a lot of different players chipping in to produce a pretty seemless transition.

[ElGee]

1. I think we'd all agree that the one thing that stayed with Kareem until ~1986 was his low post scoring. With the loss in athleticism it wasn't as good as his dominant period, but it's a similar model. Something about a hook shot. I'm focusing on that here and isolating it from the obvious decline in rebounding/defense. Why? Because I'm thinking more about how his low-post scoring game fit into a team concept and how much it helped his teammates offensively in the 70s seasons.

2. Hmm - I see little turnover in the roster and am assuming Magic/Worthy/Scott and co. are all improving a little during those years. I forgot Thompson came aboard in 87.

In general, if you're saying there are other variables that go into that team ORtg, I agree. But that's part of the very point -- I don't think certain players can just be "phased out" (excluding overall ability and just focusing on offensive "option in the system").

Kareem's an interesting study, and after the Walton discussion I'm thinking more about the roles of low-post players in offenses. I mean, I think someone in this very thread mentioned Kareem "dominated" Walton in 77 h2h, and this is the crux of why that's wrong; They didn't playing the same role.

Anyway, I want to get into more ABA stuff. Good posts, btw. I'm definitely seeing the leagues as comparable.

[Dr Positivity]

Should Barry getting a bit more love for the Warriors winning 59 games? His TS% was weak, but if it leads to a 2nd overall ORTG, the impact is clearly there. It wouldn't have been surprising for him to get MVP that year considering the lack of competition on elite teams IMO. I think Barry being a douche didn't help.

[penbeast0]

People were asking about how the ABA and the NBA compared. Some are calling them equal which is a bit of a stretch. They are comparable from 72 on though a 5-10% discount is reasonable, drop in 70-71, but in 68-69 they are equivalent to a league full of expansion teams with Connie Hawkins as a #1 pick (and maybe Mel Daniels as a top 3 pick too) going to one of those expansion teams.

I copied a post from the APBR that calculated changes in raw numbers by player for each of the years using a very simple statistical model -- not perfect but I use it as a decent approximation.

NBA-ABA Conversion Charts

year min sco reb ast SS#
1968 .38 .64 .80 .90 782
1969 .73 .72 .85 .90 125
1970 .46 .80 .88 .90 611
1971 .74 .86 .90 .95 365
1972 .91 .90 .92 1.0 529
1973 .97 .91 .92 1.0 316
1974 .61 .92 .94 1.0 347
1975 .87 .92 .95 1.0 358
1976 .80 .92 .96 1.0 3425

The Minutes column is (NBA Min)/(ABA Min) -- averaged over the
sample for that year. In 1968, several players' rates are compared
to their last previous NBA season, which in some cases were 2-4
years prior.

Sco, Reb, and Ast are actually derived from averages of several
estimates: straight average, minutes-weighted, 3-year average, and
3-year/weighted by minutes. Then just smoothed over. 'Min' are not
smoothed, merely averaged.

Assists are so jumpy, I just crudely estimated them.

SS# is the sample size in player-games considered. Most years
(3-400 player-games) are equivalent to only 4-5 full player-seasons.
(The small 1969 sample is largely one guy, Rick Barry.)

The year of reference is the ABA season played. Whether Player X was in the NBA in 1971 and the ABA in '72; or in the ABA in '72 and NBA in '73; or in both leagues in '72; his numbers are averaged into the 1972 lot. Provided he had significant minutes in both appearances.

[andykeikei]

I may very well end up putting Kareem 3rd or 4th here on stats alone, however I honestly don't see why I should if he couldn't even make the playoffs. I mean seriously, if Dr J wasn't in this, people would be putting a guy who didn't even make the playoffs as the #1 guy. How crazy is that?

This just means "make the playoff or EPIC FAIL" is a flawed logic. The same with "Home Court Advantage".

I can understand if a player hurt his team in RS by playing bad, having injuries, coasting, being selfish, having chemistry problems with teammates and coaches...but Kareem was neither of them.

I can understand if a player had a better team yet underperformed in PS and was beaten by an inferior team...but Kareem in 1977 simply did NOT have better teammates.

Rating a player performance by these stubborn little standard without looking into context is just silly IMO.

To be honest though I do find Dr Mufasa's decision to exclude Walton in 1977 was a bit ridiculous. But Walton did miss 17 games though...

[Dr Positivity]

As mentioned, the Lakers had the 4th best record in the conference. So IMO it's unfair to cast off Kareem for missing the playoffs when for the first 30 years of this project, he'd not only be easily in the playoffs with that record, but would have HCA in the 1st round.

[JordansBulls]

Yes I understand that but they knew the rules before season started. It's like complaining about losing a 3 game series saying if the series was 5 games a certain team would have won. Or if a series that was 5 games and a team lost and they say if it were 7 games they would have won. These things were implemented before the season started.

[TrueLAfan]

Re: Kareem's changed role in the late 80s and the Lakers offense staying at a high level: The short answer is, in this case, is a pretty good answer. The Lakers were fortunate enough to have players who could increase their usage and shooting without hurting their already high efficiency. James Worthy and Magic Johnson increased their shot totals by around 15% after 1986, and still managed have TS% around .600 between them. Few teams have that luxury. This allowed Kareem to go from a 16 shot per game, 22-23 ppg player (which he was 1985 and 1986) to a 12 spg, 16 ppg player (which he was in 1987 and 1988) without having the Lakers offense miss a beat.

But, really, it's more complicated and problematic. The first thing to remember is that the Showtime Lakers ended in 1986. The Lakers peak pace was around 103 to 104; it was still at 103.2 in 1985. It dropped for the next eight years; in 1990—the year after Kareem retired the Lakers were at 96.3, and in the bottom third of the league. In the next two years, they dropped to the bottom of the league in pace. Quite a descent. It's ironic, in a way, that the Lakers became much more of a halfcourt team when the player who had the best halfcourt shot in the history of the game was in decline. It shows, I think how adaptable Kareem was—he fit his game into the Lakers game more than people suspected. And, of course, it highlights the brilliance of Magic Johnson, who was able to run two very different types of offenses at exceptional levels.

This makes sense when you think about the Showtrime Lakers. When you consider that team, you think of the fast break—the outlets passing, Worthy on the wing, Magic with no look dishes. But the fact is that the Lakers leading scorer every year of the Showtime period—and, sometimes, its best player--was Cap. He was able to fit his game into a team offense that was, seemingly, counterproductive with his individual strengths—and did it at an extraordinary level until he was in his late 30s and had played huge minutes. I give some of the credit to Magic. But a lot should go to Kareem too.

[Sedale Threatt]

Nitpicking, but you wouldn't put the cutoff at 87? I know their pace was dropping, but that team could still rev it up. They had some ridiculous fast-break totals in the first two games of the Finals against Boston, provoking Mychal Thompson's classic quip: "The Celtics were keeping up fine, just at a different pace."

Great points all around, though. I've been rewatching the 85 Finals out of boredom over the past month or so, and Kareem's fingerprints are absolutely all over that team, in every way possible -- even playmaking. It's a great testament to the versatility that you mention, and a huge rebuttal to the notion he wasn't capable of impacting his teams in a hugely positive way.

There were so many instances where that was clearly the case I'm not even sure why it's being questioned. As has been stated numerous times over the past couple of threads, his biggest flaw in these years is that he wasn't able to single-handedly lift mediocre and/or injury-plagued teams to results greater than the sum of their parts would suggest possible.

[penbeast0]

Speaking of nitpicking, that's multiple posters who complain that Kareem had "the 4th best record in the conference" and "would have made the playoffs if . . . "

The Lakers were a losing team. They were 40-42. That doesn't deserve to make the playoffs; hard to give Kareem credit for making his team a "playoff caliber" team when you are talking about a sub-.500 record that you think might have backdoored in under a different format.

Also, to put things in perspective, Kareem was clearly the best player in the 70s, there's no question about that. He dominated that whole decade. MVP is about how much you make your team win in a particular year; if your team sucks, you can only push it so far and that's just reality. It doesn't change Kareem's standing as POD (player of the decade). It's only when you start talking GOAT caliber players that things like not being able to carry his lesser teams over better competition makes a difference. It shouldn't apply when comparing Kareem's legacy to anyone but Jordan, Russell, Wilt, and maybe Shaq -- the only people close to Kareem's level of dominance.

And I am waiting to see if the people complaining that this standard is being applied to Kareem are the same ones who apply it to Wilt when we get to the 60s where he had an era pretty similar to Kareem's in the 70s only with even greater individual brilliance and statistical domination.

[Sedale Threatt]

if your team sucks, you can only push it so far and that's just reality.

Exactly.

[semi-sentient]

1. Julius Erving - While I don't hold the same value for the ABA that I do the NBA, and while my impression is that Dr J's numbers are inflated due to him playing in the ABA, I really don't think he could have possibly done more. This year he's about as accomplished as one can be, and with Kareem not making the playoffs he has the best argument for top player this year.

2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - No one else was close to him as far as the NBA goes, and like Erving, I don't think he could have done more more. Absolutely dominant, just not as successful from a team standpoint.

3. Dave Cowens - Great all around season, and definitely the most important piece of the championship puzzle (should have won Finals MVP). Ended up 3rd in MVP voting, and recognized on the All-NBA 2nd Team and All-Defensive 1st team.

4. Bob McAdoo - MVP runner-up and had a great all around season. Carried a pretty lackluster Braves squad to the semis against the eventual champs.

5. Artis Gilmore - Great season from the best center the ABA has to offer. Recognized for his excellence by being selected the All-ABA and All-Defensive 1st teams.

This is probably my final vote since I won't be around this evening or tomorrow.

[TrueLAfan]

I can go with the Lakers still being able to run in 1987...they could still turn up the gas from time to time. And it's not nitpicking. I do think that those times came fewer and farther between as Kareem had a less focal role in the offense played fewer minutes and (eventually) retired.

JordansBulls...I'm not going to say you're trying to ensure MJ has the #1 spot. But, in the last couple of voting periods, you've said things like Bill Walton was "worn down" compared to Kareem (in a season where Walton played 800 minutes less than Kareem and had an excellent, physical frontcourt partner to help share the demands), compared Kareem to David Robinson (when DRob had an history of post-season failures), explained away a team with a better RS record being unable to make the playoffs as a result of conference strength and arrangement with “they knew the rules before the season started,” described the 1976 Gail Goodrich as “[in his] prime,” implied that had the Wizards made the playoffs when MJ was there that MJ would have been a top five player, repeatedly emphasized the impact of Kareem “demanding” a trade (an impact that was not was reported at the time, and the Bucks got plenty in return), and fired a pre-emptive strike at Bill Russell seven years before we're going to start voting on his seasons.

But I'm not going to say you're trying to ensure MJ ends up at #1. I'm going to say it really, really, really looks like that's what you're doing. Especially after Michael Jordan led a team to a 40-42 record, got swept in the first round (and had a relatively poor playoff series)...and you voted him second in the league that year. In a season where 16 out of 23 teams made the postseason.

[Dr Positivity]

1. Julius Erving - Statistically dominant, went all the way. It's hard to put Kareem over him with Erving's production leading to such success and Kareem going sub .500
2. Kareem - A Kevin Durant like #2
3. Artis Gilmore - 26/15 with great d is Kareem like on paper production and a level above the other guys here
4. Dave Cowens - 19/16/4 with great intangibles and d, on the title team. Good enough for 4.
5. Rick Barry - Best player on a 59 win team, an achievement even more impressive in this parity heavy league, only 3 teams in the league won under 38. TS% is shoddy but the ORTG and Ws results show his impact to me. Strugged in the 2nd half of Game 7 against Phx though and lacks Cowens' intangibles, so I'll put him 5th

HM: McAdoo, Havlicek

[Sedale Threatt]

The style of ball in the NBA back then was just so different. I didn't have any idea what I was watching back then and it was so long ago that a lot of my impressions are painted by what I read. The Celtics were depicted as being so old and decrepit at that point, but even they were firing half-court outlet/inbound passes and getting into their offense quickly. The tempo was just so much faster.

As for the rest, spot on. Trying to maintain 100% consistency over the course of this project is impossible. I know for a fact I've failed, having switched between the "Best Player" and "Best Season" standard on multiple occasions. But all those arguments against Kareem are so weak.

Another thing -- this is the same poster who has harps on advanced measures like few others, especially when it comes to championing Jordan and downplay others (example: using Gasol's win shares to minimize Kobe's impact). Yet in the instance where Kareem is crushing everybody but one player, it isn't acknowledged in the slightest.

[Sedale Threatt]

I'm also going to offer a disclaimer as I plan on aping your list.

[fatal9]

1. Kareem
2. Dr. J
3. McAdoo
4. Dave Cowens
5. Artis Gilmore

I have trouble putting players who simply weren't better over Kareem. In his situation, after being traded to the worst team in the conference, I'm not sure anyone else on this list is doing any better. Maybe "player of the year" is a combination of individual and team accolades, but team situations vary from player to player. Led the league in just about every statistic, improved a cellar team into a top 4 team in the conference despite them trading tons of key players away that off-season (led the league in rebounding, blocks, every advanced statistic, second in scoring and those watching at the time saw enough to name him the MVP ). Dr. J's ABA statistics are nice, but even he'll tell you how much the lack of defense and the frenetic pace of the league helped him achieve those stats. Putting him over Kareem just feels wrong. I'll show Gilmore some love for the fifth spot, though I'm not really a fan of what he could do in the post. Was a great finisher, strong defender, nice touch around the basket but if you ever got him the ball in the post, it was a turnover waiting to happen (most likely a travel). His post game really isn't as great as people think it is by looking at just statistics.