Retro POY '72-73 (Voting Complete)

[Sedale Threatt]

See, that's the thing. Frazier didn't win. THE KNICKS won. Like I need to say it again, but your formulaic, color-by-numbers approach to this project drives me absolutely nuts.

Why does he get substantial credit for New York's success when in fact he was just a cog in the machine -- an outstanding cog, but a cog nonetheless. This wasn't Hakeem or Wade carrying their team to victory, laying nuclear waste to everything in their path.

This was "just" an All-Star doing his job, and I don't think that's enough to make up the huge gap Kareem built in the RS.

[semi-sentient]

And here's something else I don't get:

Erving is doing pretty much the same thing this year (32 ppg, 12 rpg, 4 apg, 2.5 spg, 1.8 bpg, 27.7 PER) as he did in the previous handful, yet he's not even on the radar because his team sucked.

Swap him out for Frazier on the Knicks, and how would the voting go then?

From what I know, the farther away we get from the merger, the closer we get to a "street ball" ABA league. For my part, I won't be giving ABA players nearly as much weight as NBA players, particularly in the next few voting seasons.

Erving got a 2nd place vote from me in the other thread, but that's largely because the competition seemed weak last year (no Wilt or West). Then again, I didn't spend a whole lot of time researching so I went off of what others said.

That said, I might really need to rethink my ranking of Frazier at #2. What helps him the most is that he's a very good two-way player and led a team to a championship. His stats, overall, aren't exactly overwhelming though.

[Sedale Threatt]

I'm not really pushing him for No. 1 here. I just think it's interesting that he seems to have done pretty much what he always did, or reasonably close to it, yet he's pretty much off the radar because his team sucked.

Whereas one of five Top 50 players on the same team is getting No. 1 votes because he happened to have the best individual season on a championship team. Clyde was excellent, no question, but frankly I'm not seeing how he's even in the same league as Kareem or Dr. J.

Frankly, I don't know anything about Tiny other than what little I've read about him, but I'm wondering if you can't make a better case for him as well. Or Wilt, for that matter.

[JordansBulls]

Oscar Robertson in the playoffs had a 1.3 WS and PER of 21.0 while Kareem had a 0.5 Win Share and 17.7 PER.

Not to mention but Kareem had a -0.1 Offensive Win Share in the playoffs and a TS% of .447.

That is bad to consider a guy for #1 no matter how good the regular season was especially when he lost in the opening round with a superior team.


On the flip side of that Walt Frazier had a 3.0 WS while his next best teammate had a 1.9 WS in the playoffs and not to mention Walt still had a higher PER than anyone else on his team and led in scoring as well.

[Sedale Threatt]

What helps him the most is that he's a very good two-way player and led a team to a championship.

Something to consider about this. That team had FIVE Top 50 players -- Clyde, Reed, DeBusschere, Pearl and Lucas, in addition to a Hall of Fame coach and one of the smarter players of his generation in Bill Bradley.

Obviously, Clyde was the best player at the time, and not all of his teammates were at their peak. But that was a great all-around TEAM, making a historic ensemble like the 04 Pistons look pretty weak comparison.

So it doesn't seem to me than anybody can be considered to have led that team. At least, not in the sense I think of when I hear that term, like a Jordan or a Kareem or a Chamberlain or a...well, you probably get the picture.

A vote for Frazier isn't a vote for the best player, but the best player on the best team. Which is fine; I know I've made that vote in the past (KG in 08 most obviously, which still pisses me off that I did that). I just want to make that distinction clear before the voting is done.

[semi-sentient]

I'm seriously considering Tiny for #2.

34.0 PTS and 11.4 AST with better efficiency than most bigs is just stupid, AND he led the league in minutes played.

I'd be interested in hearing more about his defense.

[Sedale Threatt]

Oscar Robertson in the playoffs had a 1.3 WS and PER of 21.0 while Kareem had a 0.5 Win Share and 17.7 PER.

Not to mention but Kareem had a -0.1 Offensive Win Share in the playoffs and a TS% of .447.

That is bad to consider a guy for #1 no matter how good the regular season was especially when he lost in the opening round with a superior team.


On the flip side of that Walt Frazier had a 3.0 WS while his next best teammate had a 1.9 WS in the playoffs and not to mention Walt still had a higher PER than anyone else on his team and led in scoring as well.

I don't even know how to take this. You seem to use these stats only when they suit your purpose.

Kareem has been absolutely crushing PER, win shares and just about every other advanced measure throughout the decade, and you've been bending over backwards NOT to vote for him, usually through no fault of his own but because his team sucked/failed/was decimated with injuries/all of the above.

Obviously, this isn't the case here. There is no way to sugar coat it -- this was the worst playoff performance of Kareem's career. By his standards, he was terrible.

I'm not trying to gloss that over, but to argue that similar to LeBron in 10, the gap he built in the RS was so substantial that it still can't be bridged. Obviously it's not a perfect comparison; LeBron still had one great series under his belt, and another where he played poorly but not nearly as poorly as Kareem.

But it's roughly the same scenario to me as none of his contemporaries truly stand out. Clyde was great. But he was merely the best player on the best team instead of the best player, period. If people want to vote that way, that's fine. Just as long as they acknowledge that.

[Sedale Threatt]

I'd be interested in hearing more about his defense.

Me, too. I know almost nothing about him, certainly not enough to judge if he was truly great or just a good player putting up great stats on bad teams.

[JordansBulls]

Oscar Robertson in the playoffs had a 1.3 WS and PER of 21.0 while Kareem had a 0.5 Win Share and 17.7 PER.

Not to mention but Kareem had a -0.1 Offensive Win Share in the playoffs and a TS% of .447.

That is bad to consider a guy for #1 no matter how good the regular season was especially when he lost in the opening round with a superior team.


On the flip side of that Walt Frazier had a 3.0 WS while his next best teammate had a 1.9 WS in the playoffs and not to mention Walt still had a higher PER than anyone else on his team and led in scoring as well.

I don't even know how to take this. You seem to use these stats only when they suit your purpose.

Kareem has been absolutely crushing PER, win shares and just about every other advanced measure throughout the decade, and you've been bending over backwards NOT to vote for him, usually through no fault of his own but because his team sucked/failed/was decimated with injuries/all of the above.

Obviously, this isn't the case here. There is no way to sugar coat it -- this was the worst playoff performance of Kareem's career. By his standards, he was terrible.

I'm not trying to gloss that over, but to argue that similar to LeBron in 10, the gap he built in the RS was so substantial that it still can't be bridged. Obviously it's not a perfect comparison; LeBron still had one great series under his belt, and another where he played poorly but not nearly as poorly as Kareem.

But it's roughly the same scenario to me as none of his contemporaries truly stand out. Clyde was great. But he was merely the best player on the best team instead of the best player, period. If people want to vote that way, that's fine. Just as long as they acknowledge that.

Half the time he was losing in round 1 or not even making the playoffs and this with a divided league. This year's Kareem is pretty much what you saw from David Robinson yearly. Great in the Regular Season but lousy in the playoffs.

This lost this year was probably as bad as the Sixers losing in round 1 to the Nets in 1984.

[Sedale Threatt]

Half the time he was losing in round 1 or not even making the playoffs and this with a divided league.

I give up. I don't want to play checkers with you any more.

[Dr Positivity]

If anyone's looking for some video of how legit or streetball the ABA was at this point, the Finals is online

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db4wNYd351A&p=64FDAC91DA69A6A4&playnext=1&index=14[/youtube]

The pace is of course, super fast. A lot of off balance jumpers. But I would not count out this league at this point.

[semi-sentient]

Interesting... thanks.

[Optimism Prime]

Simmons excerpts about the Cowens MVP vote:

Four factors collided this season: Boston nearly broke the record for regular-season wins by going 68-14 (so everyone felt obligated to vote for a Celtic); Kareem won in '71 and '72 (so everyone felt obligated to vote for someone else); the league was heading into the "everyone's overpaid and doesn't give a ****" era (so someone as intense as Cowens stood out); and the players (still voting) didn't realize that Boston shared a division with 21-61 Buffalo and 9-73 Philly (padding their record by going 14-0), whereas Milwaukee finished 60-22 in a tougher division and had the same point differential as Boston... Meanwhile, the league's best player (Kareem) averaged a 30-16-5 and provided superior defense for the troubled Bucks (other than a slew of injuries and a suspicious Wali Jones meltdown that led to his release, the Big O became he Really Big O), also suffering a personal tragedy when seven coreligionists living in his Washington, D.C., house were murdered by a rival faction... and you know what? The Bucks still won sixty... Anyways, Kareem got robbed.

On Archibald:

The first player to lead the league in points and assists--and beyond that, minutes (a jaw-dropping 3,681), field goals, free throws, field goal attempts and free throw attempts--for a 36-win team that missed the playoffs. Can you really be "most valuable" when your team lost 46 freaking games? And don't get me started on the foolishness of a point guard averaging nearly 27 shots and 10 free throw attempts per game... We haven't seen anything like Tiny in '73 before or since and it's definitely for the best.

Keep in mind: Simmons hates Kareem with a passion, and even he admits this vote was ****ed.

[Dr Positivity]

I have a hard time putting huge stock into %s in a single round playoff series, just because of small sample size. Kareem was the same guy as always in the 73 playoffs (albeit I'd like to hear more on that elbow), and throughout his career he's made a habit of scoring very well against great defensive Cs. Kareem took 138 shots in the series, the difference between his poor 43% and an acceptable 51%, is 11 shots spread over 6 games. At some point you have to question how much should we account for it by saying Kareem was a worse player in that series, and how much is just a combination of his shots falling less than normal for once in his 20 year career, Thurmond + a great defensive execution by the Warriors, and playing 46mpg+. Kareem deserves blame - and certainly his FT shooting was awful - but there are a lot of variables to consider here.

Likewise, Frazier's FG% was very good (51%+), but on a loaded Knicks team, how much pressure was taken off him to get that %?

I just have a hard time even considering putting Frazier about Kareem, I consider the latter to be in a different level as a player and superstar and if I had to choose a player to go into the 73 playoffs with, I'd still easily take Kareem. Kareem is a 30/16/5 DPOY guy... to take anyone over that requires BIG guns. I'm just not seeing it in Frazier, who I consider about a player on Gary Payton's level, but not a legit MVP caliber player.

I have Frazier, Cowens, Tiny, Erving all at a similar level behind. Pretty sure that'll be my 2-5

[Dr Positivity]

On Erving - When discussing McAdoo in the 74 thread, I made the case that based on team results and +/- trends from this decade, it seems like franchise players always take their 3rd year before their stats lead to wins. If you look at Lebron, Durant, Paul, Howard... all those guys had their teams break out in year 3. Other players like Iverson, KG, etc. have followed the same trend. First two years below .500, 3rd year is when the winning starts.

That's what this year's Erving looks like to me, something like Lebron's 04-05. Lebron put up a 27/7/7 on 47% shooting, which looks pretty close to his prime. But went 40-42. Definitely wasn't there yet. I think Erving was similarly in that young player not experienced enough to lead a winner yet phase. But at the same time, his stats are SO good that you have to consider him for a spot here. It's not like Tiny won very much either.

[ThaRegul8r]

Well, Thurmond's first rule for success was “hope that Kareem is hurt.” I'll dig around, but I'm about 99% sure that Kareem had a bum elbow in the postseason. Anyway, here's what was said in SI at the time

The Warriors did it by holding Milwaukee under 100 points four times with tight defense, especially by Nate Thurmond on Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. In no game did Abdul-Jabbar, who long ago rated Thurmond as the league's best defensive center, score more than 27 points—his regular-season average was 30—and he shot just 43%, 12 percentage points below his average.

"You can't block that hook shot of his," Thurmond said, "but I've found when I shoot my own hook that if the man guarding me works hard at keeping his hands up and leaning up toward my shooting arm, my shot is affected even though I know mine can't be blocked, either. What it does is make you shorten the arc of your arm and that makes the arc of the ball lower. That's what I try to make Kareem do." The strategy worked. Abdul-Jabbar hit enough of his favorite shots to average 23 points a game, but many of the hooks which are sure baskets against other defenders did not go in.

For me, there are two pairs at 1-2 and 3-4 I'm pretty torn this year.

1.-2. Kareem and Frazier. I've definitely got Kareem and Frazier at 1-2. Kareem was a better player in the RS; Frazier in the PS. I (personally) think Kareem was injured and guarded by an all-time great in the playoffs...still, that's not an excuse.

But this was the second consecutive year Thurmond contained Kareem in the postseason. So how could it be written off to an injury? Was he injured in '72 as well? It just so happened that the Bucks won in spite of it the year before. So it's not a fluke. You have to credit Thurmond.

[Doctor MJ]

Something not mentioned yet except in the Simmons quote is tragedy involving Kareem's Islamic community. I talked before about Kareem's headaches - Kareem indicates that after that tragedy he was plagued with these headaches. If you're looking for the excuse for his poor play, that's the one.

I'm still deciding who my #1 will be this year, but as to the question of the two real options: 1) Kareem's a lock because of his regular season, 2) It's wide open because of Kareem's playoffs. Put me in the latter group.

A comparison was made to LeBron this year, and that's a good basis for comparison. LeBron's disappoinment this post-season opened the door. I still voted for LeBron because of 1) his superior regular season, 2) the fact that he turned out to have lost to the toughest defense in the league which almost won the title, and who made superstar who played them in a competitive series look mortal.

Kareem's going to get hit worse in my book. He got shut down worse than LeBron against a much less impressive team than who LeBron faced. Honestly, I dropped Erving down to fifth after his team got upset in '74-75, and it's not at all clear why Kareem would deserve to be treated with much more leniency this. That's not to say he necessarily won't go higher than 5th (I think he probably will), but he's actually quite lucky competition for best player is pretty weak this year.

[semi-sentient]

If there's some sort of quote or statement about Kareem's health not being 100%, I'll probably go with Cap. If not, it'll be Walt.

Found one...

In the playoffs, Kareem was extraordinary in 1970 and 1974, played very well in 1971, and was held in check in 1972 and 1973. In 1972, Wilt played great D on Kareem. In 1973, Kareem had a bad elbow and got upset by Nate Thurmond's Warriors. I hold those against Kareem...to an extent. He was injured one year, and went against two of the great defensive centers of all time.

SOURCE: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1041244&start=0#p24540589

[Optimism Prime]

If there's some sort of quote or statement about Kareem's health not being 100%, I'll probably go with Cap. If not, it'll be Walt.

Found one...

In the playoffs, Kareem was extraordinary in 1970 and 1974, played very well in 1971, and was held in check in 1972 and 1973. In 1972, Wilt played great D on Kareem. In 1973, Kareem had a bad elbow and got upset by Nate Thurmond's Warriors. I hold those against Kareem...to an extent. He was injured one year, and went against two of the great defensive centers of all time.

SOURCE: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1041244&start=0#p24540589

[Doctor MJ]

Re: Frazier. Big debate in my head about him. He didn't quite make my top 5 in '73-74, so if I put him at #1 this year, I think people would have a good case that my voting isn't coherent as it could be. (Won't necessarily stop me from doing it though)

The point about him just being the best player on the best team seems to hit a mark. With that said, this is the 2nd year in a row where he led the playoffs in Win Shares - and he didn't just do that by getting to the finals. He was 2nd in WS/48 this year, and 1st the previous year. Now, a natural reaction is "who cares about wins shares!". Obviously if you don't respect the stat at all, that's one thing. If you're like me though, you respect it. Not that the guy with the best WS is necessarily your pick for best player - but here we've got a guy that people absolutely rave about being much better than his stats say, leading his team to two huge upsets over fantastic teams on the way his team's second title, and at least one advanced stats says he looks like a superstar. This makes him hard to dismiss out of hand.

A solid performance by Kareem would have easily let him stay ahead of Frazier, but I'm really not sure about anyone else being clearly ahead of Frazier, and as I mentioned, Kareem's playoffs are a whole other thing to deal with.