Retro POY '74-75 (Voting Complete)

[Doctor MJ]

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?

Hmm.

Well first off, I'm actually shocked to learn that he received zero MVP votes in '74-75. That has me reeling a bit. With that said though, he did win the MVP his rookie year, and he did make All-ABA 1st team and All-Defensive 1st team every year of his ABA career, and was voted the #2 player in ABA history. So it's not like he wasn't getting love.

How to really make an argument for him without using stats, I'm not sure. Some things that just stand out to me about him:

"Artis Gilmore was incredibly agile and was just an amazing shot blocker. In fact, I've had him on my radio show a couple times, and I think that he stopped blocking some of the shots because they were calling goaltending on him. I don't think that anybody had ever seen anything like that and they figured that he had to be goaltending, that you can't possibly block somebody's jump shot."

This isn't him talking about a couple questionable calls here. Gilmore has 7 goaltends called on him in a single game as a rookie. This was something had a substantial impact on Gilmore's block totals, and he still blocked 5 shots a game.

So understand from the start, that at least in his rookie season, Gilmore was one of the most athletic big men anyone had ever seen.

Second, his effect on team defense was clear. Huge improvement when he joined Kentucky (they were below average the previous year), and the team then had the best defensive efficiency 3 of those last 5 years of the ABA, then goes to the Bulls, and turns their defense from mediocre to #2 in the league. This was a classic dominant big man on defense.

On offense, one can object to him not being more of a volume scorer. With that said, in basketball history, the most successful big men led teams aren't led by volume scoring big men. Gilmore's putting up 20-ish with a history of fantastic efficiency, year in and year out.

You put that all together, that's someone I'd kill to have on my team. Dominant defense, and flexible enough to sacrifice his scoring and just get more and more efficient as he picks & chooses. What's the down side?

McGinnis on the other hand is someone who clearly had problems working with other big time talent. (Hence why he got trade from Philly for lesser talent) He was prone to inefficiency - and he was a headcase. If memory serves, McGinnis was the reason Larry Brown quit as coach of the Denver Nuggets and fled NBA basketball entirely for a few years. Granted Brown's a bit of a diva, but McGinnis just refused to do what he was told ball hogging and coasting on defense - and since it was Brown telling him what to do, you KNOW that it all made strategic sense.

If I have to pick which of these two is going to be on my team, it's no contest.

[Dr Positivity]

Artis sounds like he had roughly Dwight's impact on the game

[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?

Hmm.

Well first off, I'm actually shocked to learn that he received zero MVP votes in '74-75. That has me reeling a bit. With that said though, he did win the MVP his rookie year, and he did make All-ABA 1st team and All-Defensive 1st team every year of his ABA career, and was voted the #2 player in ABA history. So it's not like he wasn't getting love.

How to really make an argument for him without using stats, I'm not sure. Some things that just stand out to me about him:

"Artis Gilmore was incredibly agile and was just an amazing shot blocker. In fact, I've had him on my radio show a couple times, and I think that he stopped blocking some of the shots because they were calling goaltending on him. I don't think that anybody had ever seen anything like that and they figured that he had to be goaltending, that you can't possibly block somebody's jump shot."

This isn't him talking about a couple questionable calls here. Gilmore has 7 goaltends called on him in a single game as a rookie. This was something had a substantial impact on Gilmore's block totals, and he still blocked 5 shots a game.

So understand from the start, that at least in his rookie season, Gilmore was one of the most athletic big men anyone had ever seen.

Second, his effect on team defense was clear. Huge improvement when he joined Kentucky (they were below average the previous year), and the team then had the best defensive efficiency 3 of those last 5 years of the ABA, then goes to the Bulls, and turns their defense from mediocre to #2 in the league. This was a classic dominant big man on defense.

On offense, one can object to him not being more of a volume scorer. With that said, in basketball history, the most successful big men led teams aren't led by volume scoring big men. Gilmore's putting up 20-ish with a history of fantastic efficiency, year in and year out.

You put that all together, that's someone I'd kill to have on my team. Dominant defense, and flexible enough to sacrifice his scoring and just get more and more efficient as he picks & chooses. What's the down side?

McGinnis on the other hand is someone who clearly had problems working with other big time talent. (Hence why he got trade from Philly for lesser talent) He was prone to inefficiency - and he was a headcase. If memory serves, McGinnis was the reason Larry Brown quit as coach of the Denver Nuggets and fled NBA basketball entirely for a few years. Granted Brown's a bit of a diva, but McGinnis just refused to do what he was told ball hogging and coasting on defense - and since it was Brown telling him what to do, you KNOW that it all made strategic sense.

If I have to pick which of these two is going to be on my team, it's no contest.

I was leaning toward Artis anyway, so I buy what you're saying in that comparison. Keep in mind that none of this is meant to overly criticize Gilmore. I'm trying to differentiate between a crop of good players and there is nuance involved.

I'm not entirely with you on the defensive impact. I can't trust the change in the 1972 ABA as a definitive indicator of Gilmore's defensive impact. From the clips I've seen, I know he's a good defender. The stats suggest that as well. But "Dwight Howard-type" doesn't mean there's a fixed amount of defensive impact. (There's a big difference in ironing out a top-5 list between 4 pts/100 and 6 pts/100 defensively.) The Bulls defense increased 0.6 pts/100 (+1.8/100 relatively) when Artis joined. Is all of that Gilmore? Who knows. Gilmore could be doing more and others could be playing worse. But it's not a huge impact, at least not the way 70s basketball was structured.

Statistically, I wonder how much to curve his early stats. I think the ABA in 72 was a fairly weak league -- Gilmore didn't suddenly get worse after his rookie year, right? -- and even the 74-76 periods, where the leagues are more comparable, are still watered down because of the stretched distribution of the talent across 28 teams (There were 10 in 1966!). I'm down with Gilmore being a clear top 10 player in this period, but I'm not sure if he's as good as those rookie stats suggest (I think his post-merger stats are a better indicator). And yes, I'm aware that his stats are fairly consistent from 75-78, which works in his favor.

Those are my reservations. His offensive game is somewhat limited -- turnovers on the high side. Solid hook, awkward coming back to the right at times. Needs to set up on the right side. Does draw a lot of fouls and is a decent passer. I think that's reflected in those weak stretches he has that writers harp on in with the "disappears down the stretch" narrative.

How much better do you think he is defensively than Cowens? Would you agree Cowens has a slightly better offensive game if we include passing and that rebounding is a wash?

[ElGee]

My 1975 POY Ballot:

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

The scoring differences in the two leagues was more pronounced this year. The NBA's average TS% is creeping toward .500, the ABA's is .520 and .525 in the playoffs. With that in mind, some pace-adjusted scoring numbers between the principles:

Code: Select all

          Pts/75  Rel TS%
McAdoo    26.7    6.7%
Barry     25.3    0.7%
McGinnis  25.3   -0.1%
Kareem    25.0    4.8%
Erving    24.0    4.5%
Gilmore   19.9    9.5%


Simply adjusting for pace brings some of those numbers back to reality. Still, if McAdoo's 50-21 becomes 42-15, it's still phenomenal. Btw, his playoff scoring rate per 75 possessions was 27.4 (+2.7%). Barry's was 23.1 (+0.4%), McGinnis 28.4 (+1.3%).

Barry and McAdoo were both better than they were in 76. I'm still giving the edge to Mac based on his machine-like scoring of the ball. His game really challenged opposing defensive schemes because of his ability to stretch bigs. And he was like a wing playing a pivot spot -- dribble drives from up top, flashing around screens, triple-threat offense from up top. Rebounded the ball extremely well too with that athleticism and length.

Defensively, they're a bit of a wash. Mac's on-ball defense is a little lazy to me, but his help and athletic-hustle plays on D are good. Barry's on-ball D can be good if he doesn't have to move his feet too much. Obviously, Rick has amazing hands, ripping people regularly when they go up to shoot.

Rick Barry's one of the greatest passing forwards ever, and he helps the GS offense a lot in that regard. But it's not like they're running everything through him in the Walton mold. CJ and Smith gave them great guard play – even if not at the same time – during the playoff run. George Johnson was very active and gave huge defensive contributions. Dudley's defense is awesome -- in game 1 of the Finals they can't even dribble the ball across half court a few times. After watching the Finals I was so impressed with their D that I checked the playoff numbers to see where they were: 92.2 DRtg. By far the best in the league.

The thing that strikes me about GS is how they play more like a 60s team/college team in terms of halfcourt activity. Lots of motion and dribbling in very specific areas of the court. Backdoor cuts, an occasional ball screen, plenty of pops and fades for jumpers. They also threw very daring passes and the extra pass in attempt to get into the lane as a team. Almost battlefield tactics to try and breach the clogged defenses of the 70s. An amazing coaching job by Al Attles.

And contrary to what some might think, it's not like when Barry left the game they fell apart. Indeed, in critical moments during the playoffs and the Finals, they made key runs with Barry on the bench for prolonged stretches. Barry said it best – they were like a college team. In more than one way.

Btw, the broadcasters were surprised that GS outrebounded Was. But GS was +427 on the glass! They were a great rebounding team. Washington wasn't.

The Barry comparison to Kobe Bryant is interesting as far as shot selection goes. Rick definitely lets a few fly that he shouldn't. Still, great range and a player clearly hurt by not having a 3-point line. If he got set and had good space it was pretty deadly. Barry carried a large scoring load for much of the RS, so those guys are my 1-2.

In the same group I had Kareem and Doctor J. Erving was MVP, Sporting News POY, had great numbers again and great team success on both sides of the ball. Lacked the super-human effort to set him apart from this group. It was a bit of a down year for Kareem, but I still think he's elite and right here at the top of the league. His injuries pull him to the back of this pack.

There was a clear drop for me after that, and the final spot came down to Hayes, Cowens, McGinnis and Gilmore. Cowens missed too much time. Hayes, I always like in an abstract sense, but his shot selection (ie mental approach?) is just so poor that it really does bring the team down, despite rebounding, defense and a lot of skill. He also failed to step up in the Finals games at any critical point and that doesn't sit well with me.

Gilmore v. McGinnis: I'll take Artis for reasons explained in the thread. I wonder if I'm short-changing George, who was clearly a great talent and someone I like watching (unfortunately there's less ABA McGinnis online than any of these 8 guys) but his turnovers are a deal-breaker for me. Then again he tied J in MVP voting and his team had a better ORtg with him having such a freakishly high usage, then he exploded in the postseason. I'm going to leave it as is, but I could really flip a coin on this one.

[drza]

Some thoughts:

1) Again, let me state how great this project is. Because with every year that we do I get a tighter grasp and vision on players whose names were legendary but I just didn't know enough about them. Someone like Artis Gilmore, for example, my most vivid memory of him is for being a guy that Dr. J dunked on in a game which set my father into hysterics. He would always bring that up..."J jumped OVER Artis Gilmore!!!". But by the time I saw him play he was just this big, lumbering, slow guy. But now I'm finally starting to flesh out my view of what he really was as a player.

2) By this point the stats are much, much less valuable to me in making comparisons than the testimony of the people in this thread and the articles that they're finding that really hash out what a player is like. I mean, I still click on the basketball-reference links, but the game was so different then with the split talent and the faster pace and the different style of play...I mean, there are like 5 30 ppg scorers between the two leagues and double-figures worth of folks averaging more than 14 boards per game. In that environment, what I conceptualize about the value of, say, a 20-10 player is completely different. Of course there is still value in looking at those stats compared to their peers, but when I see something about McAdoo going for 50 and 20 in a game it's hard for me to give that the impact that those numbers would mean if someone did it today.

3) I absolutely love the attempts that folks have made to compare the older players with the games of some of the newer players with whose games I am more familiar. I realize that all such comparisons are more for illustrative than analytical purposes, and that they are obviously not exact, but it again gives me a bit more handle on things as I try to make the numbers and accolades and team accomplishments and reputations make sense into something to generate a ranking. From this thread, I have started picturing the contenders in this way (not in order):

McAdoo - Dirk

Barry - Kobe/Ray Allen hybrid w/o Kobe's occasional lock-down D

Hayes - Mchale without the efficiency

Gilmore - Mutombo/Dwight Howard hybrid

Kareem and Doc: I have a handle on their games, but I like the '98 Shaq vs '99 Shaq' impact comp

Cowens - I haven't seen much comp of his game style, but I already had a sense of that. Instead, I'm picturing him as a version of the Willis Reed/Isaih Thomas - like best player on contender, not necessarily best in league type

McGinnis: Melo and Barkley hybrid

All of that said, here is my vote:

1) Barry.

2) McAdoo I'm not completely sold on my 1/2 vote because I just think players 3 and 4 were better, but again without direct and comprehensive evidence to the contrary I have to give the edge to the two players who put up such massive and MVP-caliber seasons and especially the one that did so while leading his team to the title.

3) Kareem

4) Dr. J Again, I feel like Kareem and Doc were probably the best two players. But back to the '98 Shaq point, this isn't the first time I've voted lesser overall players over better players who didn't have their best seasons for whatever reason. I suspect that were the 1975 season played out over DirecTV this season with the attendant advanced stat availability, J and Kareem might still have ended up 1/2 for me because I'd be able to more accurately gauge whether their team's struggles were about them or about things outside of their control. But it is what it is, and I'm content with them being further down the top-5.

5) Gilmore - After I read Dr. MJ or Penbeast (I think) I feel like I should put him higher, but then ElGee and others argue enough in the other direction to give me pause. When I thought about this last night I thought to have Gilmore a slot or two higher, but in the end I'm not convinced even this season that he was better than Dr. J, and with my giving the top-spot to 3 NBA guys that leaves Artis in 5th.

[penbeast0]

Hayes was a lot more than McHale with lower efficiency. He was one of the great rebounders in NBA history (look at his numbers before coming to play with Unseld, another HOF rebounder) whereas McHale is one of the weakest rebounders among the top bigs (only worse one I can think of is Ed McCauley who I don't really think of as an all-time great). He's more like Tim Duncan with a whiny, annoying, selfish attitude.

[Manuel Calavera]

1. McAdoo
2. Erving
3. Kareem
4. Barry
5. Gilmore (but I really want to put McGinnis)

[Doctor MJ]

My vote:

1. Barry
2. McAdoo
3. Artis
4. McGinnis
5. Julius

Tossed & turned on the top 3. Brief explanation:

This year, the Warriors were really Barry and an ensemble of players. He played FAR more minutes than anyone else on the team. Where this really blow my mind is considering the Warriors' defense. With Barry playing so much more than everyone else, and being the coach on the floor, it becomes hard to argue that he's not the team's defensive MVP in addition to scoring massively and acting as a distributor. Crazy impressive.

A key point in evaluating the Warriors also is how to factor in that they weren't THAT good all year long. If the Warriors proved to be a one year wonder, I'd be more inclined to put not that much weight in their dominant finish - but clearly this was a dominant team peaking at the right time, not a fluke.

Gilmore falls to 3 because I'm just not that confident on how he stacks up comparing to the other 2. I know I've been lobbying for him, but I do have doubts which have been argued well by others here. Still he's clearly top 3. I've already explained his superiority to McGinnis, what about Erving?

Well, it's pretty simple: When you lose like Erving's Nets did, I can't ignore it. He falls behind his co-MVP, and the other ABA'er I think was even better. He still doesn't fall out of the top 5 though, because to me Kareem's the only other guy I could really see as close, and Kareem missed significant time which kept him from even having the possibility of a disappointing post-season.

[Doctor MJ]

Last call.

[Doctor MJ]

'74-75 Results

Code: Select all

Player               1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pts   POY Shares
1. Rick Barry         14   5   0   1   0 178   0.890
2. Bob McAdoo          5  12   1   2   0 145   0.725
3. Artis Gilmore       1   1   6   4   7  66   0.330
4. Julius Erving       0   2   4   6   4  57   0.280
5. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 0   0   8   1   4  47   0.235
6. George McGinnis     0   0   1   2   2  13   0.065
7. Elvin Hayes         0   0   0   3   2  11   0.055
8. Dave Cowens         0   0   0   1   0   3   0.015
9. Bobby Jones         0   0   0   0   1   1   0.005


[Sedale Threatt]

Ronnymac had one of the most interesting posts in the threads.

Shaq misses 15 games, takes No. 1 in 02.

Kareem misses 17 games, isn't even listed on five ballots despite putting up 30/14/4 with three blocks.

Tough crowd.

[JordansBulls]

Ronnymac had one of the most interesting posts in the threads.

Shaq misses 15 games, takes No. 1 in 02.

Kareem misses 17 games, isn't even listed on five ballots despite putting up 30/14/4 with three blocks.

Tough crowd.

One made the playoffs, one didn't. One won the title and finals mvp and one didn't make the playoffs. How many guys in the first place that miss 15+ games and don't make the playoffs make the top 5 anyway?

[Doctor MJ]

Ronnymac had one of the most interesting posts in the threads.

Shaq misses 15 games, takes No. 1 in 02.

Kareem misses 17 games, isn't even listed on five ballots despite putting up 30/14/4 with three blocks.

Tough crowd.

Well speaking for myself, I forgive a lot if you accomplish a lot in the playoffs. Shaq missing those 15 games didn't keep him from leading the team to the title, so it seems silly to get hung up on it. For Kareem, the regular season was everything, and imho his regular season impact was less than 5 guys because of the time he missed.

If you want to knock me for some inconsistency here, I think there's an opportunity too, but to me the alternatives are 1) ignore missed time totally, or 2) severely penalize guys for things that didn't reduce their end team success one iota - and I just can't swallow doing either.

[ronnymac2]

Look, Shaq deserved number one in 2002 because he was the best player and his effect on the game helped his teammates and he took advantage of the great help he received. His team won a title because of all of that. But in the end, he was at the mercy of his supporting cast. Whether they were going to be good or bad that season- he didn't have a say in that.

What if Kobe, Fox, and Fisher had season-ending injuries in the fifth game of the season and PJ left the team halfway through to go live in Alaska or something. If Shaq still played the exact same way, but LA barely missed the playoffs, would he be left off a ballot despite not being able to control any of that other stuff? Would his impact dissappear?




Alchemy is the ancient process of trying to change **** into gold. I don't think it ever worked.

I can't bash Kareem for not being able to do the impossible.

[JordansBulls]

Look, Shaq deserved number one in 2002 because he was the best player and his effect on the game helped his teammates and he took advantage of the great help he received. His team won a title because of all of that. But in the end, he was at the mercy of his supporting cast. Whether they were going to be good or bad that season- he didn't have a say in that.

What if Kobe, Fox, and Fisher had season-ending injuries in the fifth game of the season and PJ left the team halfway through to go live in Alaska or something. If Shaq still played the exact same way, but LA barely missed the playoffs, would he be left off a ballot despite not being able to control any of that other stuff? Would his impact dissappear?




Alchemy is the ancient process of trying to change **** into gold. I don't think it ever worked.

I can't bash Kareem for not being able to do the impossible.

This can be said about anyone that misses games. Doesn't mean they get a break and should be included based off of assumptions.

[Doctor MJ]

Look, Shaq deserved number one in 2002 because he was the best player and his effect on the game helped his teammates and he took advantage of the great help he received. His team won a title because of all of that. But in the end, he was at the mercy of his supporting cast. Whether they were going to be good or bad that season- he didn't have a say in that.

What if Kobe, Fox, and Fisher had season-ending injuries in the fifth game of the season and PJ left the team halfway through to go live in Alaska or something. If Shaq still played the exact same way, but LA barely missed the playoffs, would he be left off a ballot despite not being able to control any of that other stuff? Would his impact dissappear?

Alchemy is the ancient process of trying to change **** into gold. I don't think it ever worked.

I can't bash Kareem for not being able to do the impossible.

Address the alternatives I mentioned. I'll readily admit that my way is less that I'd like it to be.

The core thing is actual impact. imho it's ridiculous to say a superstar who wins a title has sorely lacking impact because he missed a quarter of the regular season because in the end no one really will really care about the missed time. But ignoring time missed in a regular season where the star has nothing but the regular season seems ridiculous because that's literally linearly decreasing his impact with every game played. Is 75% Kareem better than 100% Erving? I certainly don't think so.

[semi-sentient]

Regarding Shaq in 2002, I was one of the ones who gave him a 1st place vote. The thing is, he dominated in the playoffs and especially in the NBA Finals, so that more than makes up for missed time in the regular season. Kobe wasn't quite as dominant that season (as opposed to 2001 or 2003), and the only other strong candidate was Tim Duncan who I initially had 1st that year (late change). The bottom line is that Shaq absolutely dominated at the highest level and that easily trumps anything anyone else did.

Kareem would have dominated in the playoffs as well, more than likely, but we can't give him credit for something he didn't do. The fact that he's top 5 is impressive enough considering he got no burn in the post-season. That very rarely happens unless there is a weak field of candidates, and this year the candidates are very, very strong.

[ronnymac2]

Isn't it reasonable to think that if Jabbar had somebody to help him- let's say Brandon Roy- the Bucks would make the playoffs? Making this whole thing about making the playoffs irrelevant?

I just can't put a ton of blame on Jabbar for MIL not making the playoffs. If Milwaukee had another top 15 or so player, Jabbar would still be the lead dog, and MIL makes the playoffs, and nobody even discusses how Jabbar didn't have impact.

I understand that Kareem didn't have a post-season to play with. I know he missed the 17 games in reality. Hell, that type of stuff made it so that even I didn't put him at number one this year. But you can't put blame on the guy for things he can't control. I can only judge what he can control.

[ronnymac2]

Ohh, and as long as it isn't an enormous amount of games missed and it's only REG SEA games, I usually dismiss those games missed.

[JordansBulls]

Isn't it reasonable to think that if Jabbar had somebody to help him- let's say Brandon Roy- the Bucks would make the playoffs? Making this whole thing about making the playoffs irrelevant?

I just can't put a ton of blame on Jabbar for MIL not making the playoffs. If Milwaukee had another top 15 or so player, Jabbar would still be the lead dog, and MIL makes the playoffs, and nobody even discusses how Jabbar didn't have impact.

I understand that Kareem didn't have a post-season to play with. I know he missed the 17 games in reality. Hell, that type of stuff made it so that even I didn't put him at number one this year. But you can't put blame on the guy for things he can't control. I can only judge what he can control.

Huh??? They made the playoffs as soon as he left.
How can you say give him another top 15 player or so and he makes the playoffs when a guy like Rick Barry won the title without having one in the 70's in a league that had half of it's best players in the other league in the ABA?