Retro POY '74-75 (Voting Complete)

[ThaRegul8r]

Re: Barry

Conversely, why is Barry suddenly number 1 when most people haven't even given him a vote in the last 2 years? Are people likening this to Walton's impact in 77??? Again, I don't know where I'll have him, but it just seems like people are basing a lot on the old team success.

You said that Hakeem as PotY in '94 was "easy," but you don't know why Barry is #1 this year, when Barry accomplished what Hakeem did in '94 first? You said in '03 that Duncan had a good team— though you ultimately ended up voting for him, but that doesn't apply with with Barry. Golden State wasn't supposed to contend for anything, and sweeping a 60-win Washington team (tied for the league's best record)—who many expected to in fact sweep Golden State—was the biggest upset in NBA history at that time. Conversely, the '93-94 Rockets were 58-24, and the '93-94 Knicks were 57-25.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=X7 ... 893,101731

"The Warriors lost four important members of their 1973-74 team—Nate Thurmond, Clyde Lee, Cazzie Russell and Jim Barnett—but instead of settling for a rebuilding year they won the Pacific Division championship."

"The Golden State Warriors head into the National Basketball Association championship series the same way they opened the season, as decided underdogs."

"Not only was the Warriors' sweep a remarkable achievement, but just the fact that they beat the heavily favored Bullets was one of the most incredible achievements in basketball history."

So how can you not see why Barry would be #1 this year, yet talk up Garnett in '03? You talked then about Garnett taking on the Lakers with the lineup he had and playing them fairly close. But now, Rick Barry not only upsetting, but sweeping a superior team in the Finals doesn't do anything for you?

[ronnymac2]

The more I study Mcadoo, the more I like him. I've heard the comparisons before, but now I'm seeing it; he looks like Dirk Nowitzki.

Maybe not the scoring part though. No, I see Bob having an effect on offense like DIrk. Bob is a big man who can drags opposing bigs away from the basket, come off screens, cuts, and plays off the ball well. He's also a Dirk-like passer- meaning not elite like a KG, but still very good. He seems unselfish and able to help teammates out.

Then, you get his production on top of that. 30 ppg on 50% shooting. Ridiculous.

I have to assess where this guy is on my all-time list. This guy's peak is coming off as unbelievable to me right now. He's got to be above George Gervin. At least, he is peak-wise.

Bob's defense is solid, too. People on this board have spoken about Bob's defense like he's Amare, but from what I've seen, he's solid. A bit above average even.

His playoff series was too damn good. He needs a spot.


What do I do with McGinnis? He seems like a wreckless player, but 32/16/8 is decent for an 18 game playoff run.

Uggghhhh......Sorry to Cowens and Hayes. You guys didn't get the necessary tie-breakers to get in this season.

Oh ****....what about Walt Frazier? He had his first awesome year of the this project. Was dominant in three games in the playoffs. He was all-nba and all-d first team. 21/6/6 with 2.4 steals and great defense. His number two in the playoffs, Earl Monroe, shot under 30%, so it isn't his fault the team got eliminated.

Archibald didn't have a good playoffs. Not his best season really either.

Havlicek is starting to decline a bit as well.

KAJ, Gilmore, Erving, Barry, Mcadoo, Mcginnis are the contenders. Frazier is there, too. Only Barry is absolutely guaranteed a spot.

[ronnymac2]

Add Bob Lanier to that list, too.

I don't like Hayes. He's Kevin Mchale without the efficiency. He just adds some rebounding. Maybe slightly better defense.

[Doctor MJ]

I definitely think this is Barry's year. Guys like McAdoo and Hayes have similar caliber seasons, but one separates himself when he leads his team to the chip in an unthinkable upset. Could argue it's a similar situation with Artis in the ABA, but I'm not sold he was as dominant, nor achieved as an impressive feat in the playoffs.

As Snakebites mentioned in a recent 74-75 competition, Gilmore's competition to the title was actually a bit mis-leading. The Colonels faced two teams under .500, and a mediocre 45 win team in the Finals. Granted it's not a slight against the Colonels and Gilmore for beating those teams that they were matched up against, compared to whom Barry beat, and the underdog status in each series, Barry's run to the title is markedly more impressive. Saying that, Gilmore was the catalyst for their championship and a monster on both ends of the floor.

I'll say up front that I'm still debating between McAdoo, Barry, and Gilmore for my #1.

When you talk about the competition Kentucky faced to win the ABA title and knock them for it, I think it's pretty dang important to mention that Kentucky was FAR more successful of a team in the regular season than Golden State was relative to their respective competition, and then really killed everyone (albeit not the most impressive rogue's gallery you'll ever see) they faced in the playoffs. Golden State gets the opportunity to pull the unthinkable upset by not playing well enough in their 95 previous games to be considered a team really worthy of being in the finals (clearly the two best teams were in the East). The sweep in the finals is great, but the only reason to consider Golden State's year to be anywhere near as impressive as Kentucky's is by stating up front that the NBA is a clearly superior league - and while thinking that, keep in mind that in the interleague play, the ABA won 16 of 23 matches this year (if you're not aware of the history, the NBA dominated in the early years, with the ABA gradually gaining the advantage).

Re: Gilmore's dominance. I dunno, 25 & 16 while shooting TS at 62% seems pretty dominant, and he's really not doing anything this year that he wouldn't do in the NBA except that he's playing huge minutes (42 mpg). Criticism of Gilmore not being as aggressive of a scorer as he could have been are not entirely unreasonable I think, but still the gap between him and Barry I only about 6 ppg despite the fact that Barry's taking 28 shots per game and Gilmore's only taking 16. Do we really think that managing to score 6 points in 12 more shots would have helped his team? Then there's the matter that Kentucky's biggest strength was defense, and Gilmore was considered to be by far the biggest reason for that.

But as I said, still in debate here. While Barry's lack of efficiency bothers me, this was clearly a guy still providing major net lift to his team's offense, and who stepped up on the biggest stage. Meanwhile, McAdoo really was a scoring force up there on an all-time level, and the correlation between his peak and team success is glaring.

[Doctor MJ]

What do I do with McGinnis? He seems like a wreckless player, but 32/16/8 is decent for an 18 game playoff run.

Incidentally, McGinnis probably makes my top 5, but I don't see him as a real threat for the top 3. This is a guy who put up big numbers, but he was also just handed the ball and let to do his thing. Sky high usage this year, and based on his time in the NBA, I just feel like he's a guy who prevents you from utilizing other talent as much as you'd like. The upset over Denver in the playoffs was great, but I don't see how to put him ahead of Gilmore when Kentucky beat them so easily.

[ElGee]

Re: Barry

Conversely, why is Barry suddenly number 1 when most people haven't even given him a vote in the last 2 years? Are people likening this to Walton's impact in 77??? Again, I don't know where I'll have him, but it just seems like people are basing a lot on the old team success.

You said that Hakeem as PotY in '94 was "easy," but you don't know why Barry is #1 this year, when Barry accomplished what Hakeem did in '94 first? You said in '03 that Duncan had a good team— though you ultimately ended up voting for him, but that doesn't apply with with Barry. Golden State wasn't supposed to contend for anything, and sweeping a 60-win Washington team (tied for the league's best record)—who many expected to in fact sweep Golden State—was the biggest upset in NBA history at that time. Conversely, the '93-94 Rockets were 58-24, and the '93-94 Knicks were 57-25.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=X7 ... 893,101731

"The Warriors lost four important members of their 1973-74 team—Nate Thurmond, Clyde Lee, Cazzie Russell and Jim Barnett—but instead of settling for a rebuilding year they won the Pacific Division championship."

"The Golden State Warriors head into the National Basketball Association championship series the same way they opened the season, as decided underdogs."

"Not only was the Warriors' sweep a remarkable achievement, but just the fact that they beat the heavily favored Bullets was one of the most incredible achievements in basketball history."

So how can you not see why Barry would be #1 this year, yet talk up Garnett in '03? You talked then about Garnett taking on the Lakers with the lineup he had and playing them fairly close. But now, Rick Barry not only upsetting, but sweeping a superior team in the Finals doesn't do anything for you?

It has nothing to do with me -- I've had Barry higher than most for this project. Maybe you weren't following what i was alluding to, because you chopped out my quote. The Warriors posted a monster SRS the next year and a solid number again in 77. How different was Barry's play then compared to 75? Some people didn't give him an HM, and now he's No. 1? But if the Bulls had made 3 more buckets down the stretch of G7 he wouldn't be No. 1. Nor No. 2, probably. (That logical conundrum is not an issue for me because I don't really care if they lost in the Finals or semis or win...I only care how Barry played.)

Otherwise, you're reinforcing my point. The articles you're posting don't say "Barry swept the heavily favored Bullets," they say the team did. Or are you saying Barry led them to the title only by the feat of his Herculean play? Then why didn't they have a championship regular season? That argument would imply Barry had a mediocre regular season, no? Unless you think he was already really good in the RS, then went Jordan in the playoffs...but then why no love in 76 or 77? (He had a great playoffs in 77 for the playoff/potential crowd. He had great team results for that crowd in 76 RS. He's the leading scorer and essential distributor on elite offenses both years, and sniffs nothing.)

As for your other points, I'm assuming you haven't read many of my posts. Why would you think team records had anything to do with my vote in 1994? Or ever, really? Hakeem was "easy" in 94 because he easily had the best season. My only pointin 03 about the teams on the floor was in response to points about those teams; Garnett's play did impressed me in 03 in terms of driving the competitiveness of those games so much with his brilliant/dominant play. But no, "Garnett" didn't play them close, just like Barry didn't sweep Washington. Those are team results...

Btw, here's Barry playoffs from 1975:

vs. Seattle (43-39, -1.2 SRS. Average DRtg)
G1: 39 points 11 ast 8 steals.
G2: 29 points
G3: 33 points (13-21). Charles Johnson 24 points.
G4: 11 points. 4 1st half fouls. Wilkes 22. C. Johnson 16.
G5: 19 pts. 8 in 4th q after voluntarily resting much of 3rd with a huge lead. Wilkes 28 pts 8 reb. C. Johnson 16 pts.
G6: 31 points. George Johnson is "the toast of the town" after exploding for 18 pts 15 reb and 8 blocks to change the game. Fred Brown DNP for Seattle with a broken finger. Wilkes 20 pts. C. Johnson 14.

vs. Chicago (47-35, 2.89, -3.3 DRtg)
G1: 38 points. "Love (37 points) played barry almost even." Wilkes 28 points.
G2: 26 points. Barry is the goat as he shoots an unnecessary jumper with 12 seconds left instead of running out the clock. Chicago scores and wins. C. Johnson 23 points. Wilkes 16.
G3: 21 points (9-23 FG). Wilkes and C. Johnson 18 points. "Van Lier's penetration made the difference" according to Bulls coach Motta. Van Lier with 35.
G4: 36 points. 32 after the 1st quarter. Warriors storm back behind bench -- 30-13 run in 2nd quarter -- to win from 19 down.
G5: 20 points (8-26 FG). Bulls play a "defensive gem" led by Sloan.
G6: 36 points 8 reb 8 ast 7 steals. The AP calls barry's series "up and down."
G7: 22 points. 14 in 4th. Wilkes with 10 3rd Q points with Barry on bench. Motta credited George Johnson for changing the game inside with his play.

vs. Washington (60-22, 6.5 SRS -6.4 DRtg) -- courtesy chez
G1: 24 points (8-21) 0 reb 5 ast 3 steals.
G2: 36 points (14-31) 9 reb 4 ast 3 steals. Wilkes and co. bother Hayes into 3-15 game. GS +9 on glass, Bench scoring +20. Wilkes 14 points.
G3: 38 points (12-23) 4 reb 6 ast 5 steals. Hayes 9-20. GS +14 on glass, +14 bench.
G4: 20 points (10-24) 3 reb 5 ast 3 steals. Hayes 7-13. GS +15 on glass, +24 bench.

Barry's getting scoring contributions from 8 guys. Hayes from 4. Bullets shoot 41% from the floor for the series, are pounded on the glass and turn it over 25 times per game.

Barry averages 28-6-6 on .505 TS% for the playoffs.
Barry averaged 24-7-7 on .489 TS% for the 76 playoffs.
Barry averaged 28-6-5 on .505 TS% for the 77 playoffs.

Team differences in 76? They replace Beard and Mullins with rookie Gus Williams. Wilkes grows, Smith breaks out in the starting role.
---
Again, just to be clear, my confusion is the inconsistency with how Barry is being treated, not necessarily where people are ranking him.

[ronnymac2]

Dr. MJ.....yeah, Gilmore over McGinnis. Easier to judge them because they played in the same league. Gilmore seems like the better player, and he won major tiebreakers.



I regret not giving a more forceful argument for Barry in 77 and 76. I mentioned him, and I gave him a vote in 76, but still....this dude was a beast. Offensively, he was a wizard. He was basically as effective as Kobe Bryant on offense (well, a little less), and he had just as much competitive drive as Kobe, too. Not as good as Kobe on defense, but he was still a valuable defensive piece in GSW's full-court press, getting steals off the traps and pressure. Solid on the glass.

I don't want to hear the whole "He was an ass" argument. Who gives a ****? He's a great player who gets the job done, right? We gave Jordan a lot of love in this project, and he deserved all of it imo. Well, Jordan was as much of a douche as Barry. Why can't we give Barry the credit he deserves, too?

We are not judging these guys based on who they are as human beings. Otherwise, Ray Allen and Derek Fisher would be top five players every year this decade. Barry was working for an organization. If you were the head of an organization, would you take the guy who was ornery and talked **** but you know he gets the job done better than most and he's as competitive as all hell and just wants to be the best? Or would you take a better human being who was less effective and smiled regardless of winning or losing? I'd put the money into the first guy. If his co-workers, the other people I'm paying to do a job, have a problem with him, that's their problem. They signed up for the job. **** happens. They're getting paid to do a job. Not be friends with Rick Barry.


FWIW, Barry got to the free throw line 8 times per game in the finals. He managed to get to the free throw line a lot more in his finals appearances than in the regular season. He was amazing in the 67 finals at getting to the line, driving hard into the lane where Wilt Chamberlain and enforcer Luke Jackson were wating for him. This time, he was driving into Hayes's help defense and the brick wall known as Wesley Unseld. The dude was fearless. On the biggest stage, he was willing to do whatever it took to win.


Seriously, what about Walt Frazier???

[lorak]

1. Barry
2. McAdoo
3. KAJ
4. Dr J
5. Gilmore

[ThaRegul8r]

Don't have much time right now, but...

It has nothing to do with me -- I've had Barry higher than most for this project. Maybe you weren't following what i was alluding to, because you chopped out my quote. The Warriors posted a monster SRS the next year and a solid number again in 77. How different was Barry's play then compared to 75?

Maybe '75 was his best season, which is why he would garner #1 votes?

Some people didn't give him an HM, and now he's No. 1?

It also depends on the context of the season. Wes Unseld was voted MVP in '68-69 and never so much as made an All-NBA Team again. It was a one-year thing.

But if the Bulls had made 3 more buckets down the stretch of G7 he wouldn't be No. 1. Nor No. 2, probably.

I thought we're going by what did happen, not what if. If Barry hadn't played the way he did, the Warriors never would have been there to begin with. As they weren't expected to be.

Otherwise, you're reinforcing my point. The articles you're posting don't say "Barry swept the heavily favored Bullets," they say the team did.

And why did the team sweep the heavily favored Bullets? Maybe you missed the first article.

If Barry admittedly hasn’t been a monster this season, the veteran forward of the Golden State Warriors certainly has frightened rival National Basketball Association teams with his scary scoring statistics.

In 29 games, he has shocked the Warriors opponents with a total of 963 points, including a league-high of 48 in a single game, for an average of 33.2 points, tops in the NBA.

His play perhaps has been most responsible for the Warriors possessing a surprising 19-10 record and holding a commanding 5½-game lead in the Pacific Division. Golden State is the only team with an over .500 mark in the division, a division in which the Warriors did not even figure to be title contenders because of the loss of such standouts from last season as Nate Thurmond, Cazzie Russell, Clyde Lee and Jim Barnett.

But the imperturbable Barry has been playing sensationally, carrying the club to its unexpected lofty position in the standings. Not only has he been scoring well, he is the league leader in free throw shooting and steals, and is fifth in assists.

“I can’t believe that anyone’s playing better basketball or doing more for his team,” said Golden State Coach Al Attles after Barry had demoralized New York with 44 points, including hitting his first eight field goal attempts and all six free throw shots, six rebounds, four assists and two steals in a 126-108 rout of the Knicks Tuesday night.

Attles saying Barry was like a coach on the floor helping younger players. That doesn’t show up in the stat sheet, but it helps with team success. Barry taking over leadership as the captain after Nate Thurmond was traded? You know, the guy who was one of the greatest centers in NBA history?

Here's another article:

Any list of reasons for the surprising showing of the Golden State Warriors this season has to begin with Rick Barry.

Barry is having the greatest season of his career, and he has had some great ones. He is leading the National Basketball Association in scoring (with a 33.2 point average), steals and free throw shooting, and ranks fifth in assists. Most important, he has become the team leader, virtually a coach on the floor.

“No doubt about it,” says Coach Al Attles. “He’s the biggest reason we’re up there.”

Or are you saying Barry led them to the title only by the feat of his Herculean play? Then why didn't they have a championship regular season?

Because they weren't a championship regular-season type team? Maybe you missed what was said about Golden State being a complete surprise because they had just lost four key players. They overachieved as it was.

That argument would imply Barry had a mediocre regular season, no?

Barry is having the greatest season of his career

Nope.

As for your other points, I'm assuming you haven't read many of my posts. Why would you think team records had anything to do with my vote in 1994?

So when people talk about Hakeem in '94, they don't talk about him winning without much help, being one of three players in NBA history who came closest to winning single-handedly?

Hakeem was "easy" in 94 because he easily had the best season.

And it was because he had that season that the Rockets won a championship. Same in '95.

My only pointin 03 about the teams on the floor was in response to points about those teams; Garnett's play did impressed me in 03 in terms of driving the competitiveness of those games so much with his brilliant/dominant play. But no, "Garnett" didn't play them close, just like Barry didn't sweep Washington. Those are team results...

I spent much of that year -- supported by the success of a not-so-good TWolves team -- arguing KG was the best in the league (given Shaq's, um, physical state). I felt that way in the spring. I felt that way during the playoffs, when I saw Garnett with

Szczerbiak
Rasho
Hudson
Joe Smith
Peeler

take on a 3-time defending champion (albeit weaker) Lakers team led by Shaq with

Kobe
Fisher
Horry
Fox
George

and play them fairly close.

I didn't see you say Minnesota took on the Lakers and played them fairly close there. You said Garnett—then listed the "not-so-good T-Wolves" he had to play with—took on a Lakers team led by Shaq—then listed Kobe and showed their superior team.

Gotta go.

[TrueLAfan]

I am, with some slight reservations, going to go with Kareem at Number 5. Chemistry on a team is a nebulous thing to define, but it's important. Losing Oscar, Lucious Allen, and Curtis Perry was a massive blow. Losing Kareem for 17 games cost the team at least another 5-7 wins. The kicker was Jim Price going down late in the season, which left the Bucks without a PG down the stretch. Dr. J's team won more; I don't think he was as important to his team--or responsible for as many wins--as the big fella.

After more thought, I've decided to keep my original Top 4 as well. I'm sympathetic to the arguments against McGinnis about his turnovers and his odd role in the offense. But...but...no team that had George McGinnis as a starter for more than 30 games ever finished below .500. What he did worked, and it worked very well this year--he led a Cinderella team.

[Dr Positivity]

Seriously, what about Walt Frazier???

Too difficult a year IMO. I'm leaving McGinnis off after he dropped a 30/14/6, won co MVP and took his team to the Finals... you need to be superhuman to make the top 5 this year

[ElGee]

Don't have much time right now, but...

Snipped

Hmm - I'm not sure what else to say. It was a simple point and you don't seem to follow. Team conflation has been hashed out earlier in the project if you want to re-read those discussions.

Yes, 1975 may have been Barry's best season. But how much better was it than 1976 or 1977? If one argues it was waaaaay better, fine. (I think that would take some fairly creative analysis.) I just think the title and Finals MVP are putting him on people's radar suddenly, and the Chicago Bulls making 3 extra field goals has nothing to do with how well Rick Barry played.

The team swept the Bullets because of their defense, rebounding, bench play, key contributions from role players and Rick Barry. All of the articles you keep posting don't change or dispute that, or discuss how much better he was in 75 than 76 and 77.

[ElGee]

McAdoo's series against Was (2 partial games are online):

Pts/Reb (FG, FT)

G1: 35/14 (16-28, 3-5) 5 blocks -- Hayes 20
G2: 36/6 (14-?, 8-13) -- Hayes 34/16
G3: 34/19 (13-35, 8-11) -- Hayes 30
G4: 50/21 (20-32, 11-13) -- Hayes 16
G5: 34/? (11-?, 12-13) -- Mac 2-13 FG's in 1st half. Hayes 46* (19-26, 11-13)
G6: 37/? (14-?, 9-11) -- 9 pts in final 5 min. Said he was "dead tired" after game. Hayes 29.
G7: 36/? (16-? 4-6) -- Hayes 24/9. Chenier career-high 39.

*Game 5 was the 20th consecutive time Washington had won when Hayes hit 30 points. Incidentally, he did not hit 30 in the Finals once.

McAdoo 34 rebounds in those last 3 games.
Series: 37.4 ppg 13.4 rpg 1.4 apg 2.7 bpg .528 TS%

[ElGee]

I don't want to hear the whole "He was an ass" argument. Who gives a ****? He's a great player who gets the job done, right?

Well, I only think it matters in something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYyTL0pp ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWLmyT0E ... re=related

In 75, Attles bull-rushes a player to defend Barry. His teammates are with him.
In 76, in the same type of situation, his teammates don't really come over and stop Sobers from punching Barry in the head repeatedly.

Perhaps not so coincidentally, GS waged a big comeback and won G1 in 1975 and in G7 in 1976 were upset by Phoenix. So, his personality is a small thing because he's so good on the court, but it can have a small impact.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_S ... %2C2134236

[ronnymac2]

Seriously, what about Walt Frazier???

Too difficult a year IMO. I'm leaving McGinnis off after he dropped a 30/14/6, won co MVP and took his team to the Finals... you need to be superhuman to make the top 5 this year

This IS a tough year. I just think a top 25 player in his prime who has a stellar overall season should be recognized a bit more here. He should be seen as a threat.



50-21 for Mcadoo.....insane.......



I watched some of the Finals. I really like Wes Unseld's game. Every part of it. He even has a nice jump shot. I would have liked to watch Wes and E vs. Shaq. Unseld's low center of gravity might slow Shaq's mobility, and Hayes could come over and bother the shot with his length. Stylistically, they are perfect at stopping power-post player's imo.

I have no use for Elvin's offense. None.

Riordan and Chenier are very good. Charles Johnson is a fiesty defender, and George Johnson and Cliff Ray seems to be very valuable for GS. Their defense as a tandem is instrumental imo, because their length and activity covers GS as it presses and switches. I honestly don't think Wilkes is the second best player for this team even though he was the second leading scorer.

Barry is amazing. He's like a combination of Kobe and Ray Allen. He has Ray's quick release and ability to move without the ball/off screens to spread the floor. He has 2010 Kobe's ability to drive and draw fouls on the perimeter despite average athletic ability. He also takes questionable shots sometimes like Kobe- and like Kobe, he makes some unbelievable ones. He's got great vision for playmaking. His touch passes are amazing; the Bird comparisons make sense to me now. Rick has a nice mid-range game and an effective driving hook shot.

KAJ, Dr. J, Gilmore, Barry, and Mcadoo are left standing. McGinnis, Frazier, Cowens, and Hayes will get HM's.

Barry takes a lot of tiebreakers. Really a dream season for him. If you described his season, it'd sound like one of MJ's title seasons. I see Barry as a top 20 player ever, and since this is his absolute peak, he can't be too far off from anybody else. Might be enough to get him into first.

I'll take Jabbar over Erving. I'll take Mcadoo over Gilmore. Erving over Gilmore. Barry over Gilmore. Gilmore gets fifth. Now it gets tough.

How does Mcadoo stack up against Erving and Jabbar? He really had a special season. Amazing in the playoffs. He does hold some important tiebreakers over them, including a scoring title, MVP, and amazing playoffs. His stats were close to those two monsters. Maybe better.

I'll do it. I can buy Mcadoo in second. This year at least.

I need to put Barry in first.

For Kareem and Julius, I feel like this season is to their peak seasons as Shaq's 1998 season is to his peak seasons (talking about level of play and stats and team success, not injury). Very, very good, but maybe not good enough to be called peak play. Just prime play. If other guys are close but inferior, but have major tiebreaker advantages, Julius and Kareem can be surpassed.

Gilmore imo is CLEARLY inferior to Julius and Kareem as a player. A championship can't change that.

Honestly.....I wouldn't argue if somebody put Jabbar and Julius in the first two spots. I think they have arguments.


Final Rankings:

Rick Barry
Bob McAdoo
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Julius Erving
Artis Gilmore

HM for being awesome: Pete Maravich

HM: Walt Frazier, George McGinnis, Dave Cowens, Elvin Hayes

[ElGee]

Forgot to post this earlier.

ABA MVP Voting (3 writers per ABA city):

McGinnis 11
Erving 11
Mack Calvin 6
Bobby Jones 2

[Optimism Prime]

1. Bob McAdoo
2. Rick Barry
3. Julius Erving
4. Artis Gilmore
5. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

[Sedale Threatt]

1. McAdoo
2. Barry
3. Abdul-Jabbar
4. Erving
5. Gilmore

[ElGee]

Before I vote, I'd love to hear more debate/analysis between Gilmore and McGinnis. These are the two players I know the least about, and I'm having a hard time seeing why some value Artis so highly when he never gets MVP love and I've never a seen an old source that really talks him up too much. Going to try and research this more before voting but I'd love to hear others weigh in. Doc, you like Artis a lot - care to make an argument outside of 25-16 62% that I can sink my teeth into?

EDIT: Found these:

Gilmore's NBA FInals
G1: 26/13 -- McGinnis 35/12/9 (25 in 2nd half). Gilmore DQed with 8 min left and Colonels dominated.
G2: 12/15 -- Gilmore GW shot with 2 seconds left only score of 2nd half.
G3: 41/28 -- 11 OReb. McGinnis mildly sprains ankle.
G4: 18/18 -- Gilmore "wasn't much of a factor in 4th" (AP). McGinnis 22 pts 21 reb.
G5: 28/31 -- Gilmore's rebounds an ABA playoff record. McGinnis 31.

Gilmore's Finals avg: 25.0 ppg 21.0 rpg
McGinnis Finals avg: 27.6 ppg 14.0 rpg 6.4 apg

Gilmore through first 2 rounds: 23.7 ppg 15.9 rpg
McGinnis through first 2 rounds: 34.1 ppg 16.6 rpg 8.9 apg

[Warspite]

McGinnis is a Melo/Charles hybrid while Artis is a Mutombo/Duncan hybrid. The big differance is going to be the defense.