Retro Player of the Year Project

[Gifted Mind]

Your linked analysis is very interesting, as our your observations about how things have gone here.

Re: the distinction between the two criteria. You were very polite about the difference, but when you talk about your approach as "pure basketball", and thus implying that our approach is impure, I don't agree with that characterization, so I'd like to give my rationale for why the project was done this way. Forgive me if I come off antagonistic, it's not my intent.

Sorry maybe my word choice of "pure" wasn't the most appropriate, but I think it comes down to MVP vs. Better Player difference. POY is like the MVP of both the regular season and playoffs. Nonetheless, the MVPs though aren't necessarily the better players. And that's why there is some difference between the 2 .

To me what makes someone a good basketball player is their ability to help their team win. So if a player has a season where he looks good by individual metrics, but he doesn't really help his team, he's not playing well.

I agree. I would say that the better basketball player is the player who can help a team win more games. It's not necessarily just individual talent that makes one basketball better than the other. It's taking that individual talent and translating it best into a team game.

I think the "best player" approach is something that becomes most beneficial when doing all-time rankings, where a player's complete capabilities and history can be assessed holistically. A player having a year where he's still clearly in his prime, but for whatever reason it isn't helping his team may have very little impact when making such judgments. I see the purpose of this project not as a highly quantified substitute for qualitative ranking but as a means to force us all to really understand what happened all throughout these players' careers.

Sometimes a player can only do so much with a team. A player with a not so talented team, even if he is clearly better, will unfairly be hurt in the POY/MVP rankings.
Take 2005 as an example. Nash finished higher than KG. He enjoyed much more success while KG missed the playoffs. Nonetheless, KG was near his 04 level in 05, and took a horrible team to a respectable 44-38 record. With what he was given, he played excellent, and was a better basketball player than Nash. However, from an MVP/POY he was lower due to his lack of team success compared to Nash.

The biggest difference between our 2 approaches is seen in 1975. I have Kareem at #1, and here he is #5. Granted he missed the playoffs and 16 games. I punish a little bit for injuries too, however I still had to put Kareem at #1 despite his lack of team success. Because from a basketball standpoint, Kareem was still the best player in the NBA. He was still very much in his prime, and compared to Rick Barry, he was a better basketball player. On offense it's debatable, however Kareem blows him out on defense and rebounding. If I had to pick 1 player to take from 75, without hesitation I would take Kareem. His impact on most given teams would still be more than Rick Barry's.

But from a MVP/POY approach, Rick Barry obviously takes it. His play in the playoffs puts him on the top. McAdoo had a shot if not for the quick exit in the playoffs. But winning the championship with the roster he was given was commendable and worthy of a POY.


With all that said, the POY approach is a great and arguably more desirable approach to take. It would probably be what most NBA Players would want to achieve as well.

-No POYs for Kobe. Yeah, that surprised me too. I voted him #1 in '07-08. I stand by that vote, but the arguments put forth for Garnett that year and generally were quite good. I'm still trying to get a handle on exactly how good I think Garnett was. There's a part of me that increasingly feels that he was actually the best player over the course of the 00s - but I'm not yet sold enough for that to be my gun-to-the-head opinion.

Yes I've always felt as if Garnett has been underrated throughout his career. In fact, I'd probably take a peak Garnett over peak Kobe. However, by 08, it wasn't a peaking Garnett anymore. Kobe was still as or nearly as good as he ever was, and Garnett had clearly dropped from 2004.

-Reed & Frazier. If there is a bias here, I'd say it's 2-fold: 1) We've got several intelligent posters here from the era that have been arguing vehemently for years that Frazier was the true star of the Knicks, 2) This group tends to embrace advanced stats, and when you look at the advanced stats, Frazier typically looks better than Reed. My own take is that there may be a little too much swing in Frazier's direction here, and I had Reed 3 & Frazier 4 in '69-70, but the idea that Reed got too much credit and Frazier not enough seems very clearly true.

I think this maybe true later in their careers, but 69 and 70 were clearly Reed's years. That's why I think the reverse chronological order may have hurt Reed because of all the Walt Frazier praises coming early.

-Russell in '69. You talk about "who would have gotten it", that's not something we're trying to consider. We're trying to assess who should have gotten it with the retrospective omniscience we're privy to. In retrospect we know that Russell in '69 was good enough that his team won the title, but won only 34 games the next year without him, and that the great defensive dynasty of the Celtics was still in force in '69, but completely dissipated the following year. That's some great value added right there, and he's going up against other candidates who it's quite questionable whether they were contributing an at all comparable lift, so it's not surprising at all he was a strong candidate.

I would still argue by 68', Havlicek was a better player than Russell. He was being called the "captain" of the team even by Russell. Of course if you factor in Russell's coaching, he was more valuable and made more impact to the Celtics's than Havlicek. However, from a players standpoint, Havlicek had surpassed Russell at least by 69. He was their leading scorer, playmaker, and top perimeter defender. Furthermore, if West had not gotten Finals MVP, I have a strong feeling Havlicek would have. So without being too close to an MVP or clear-cut leading to the championship, I'm not sure how Russell was the POY.

[Sedale Threatt]

Go dig up the 68 thread and read through it. There was a very strong case made on his behalf. I've been arguing for the past two threads about how strong Boston's supporting cast was, even at that stage. But as much respect as I have for Hondo, and as much sympathy as I have for Wilt in the head-up comparison, even I'd have a hard time accepting Russell as anything less than Boston's heart and soul.

And regarding the project, I know I've jumped back and forth in several instances between Best Player and Best Season (MVP). I wish I'd been more consistent. But at the same time, I've tried to vote according to what felt right. Plus, we've got some really, really good posters who, if they made a solid enough case, could sell just about any player here. I.E., Garnett in 08, Nash over Kobe, Russell in 69, etc., etc. The only vote I seriously regret at this point is Garnett in 08. Considering we're pushing 50 years in this thing, I'll take that.

And even then, if you look at some of the arguments made on his behalf, you can't really question the impact. So even that vote was justified if you read through the thread.

[ElGee]

Gifted Mind -- not everyone has the pure "MVP" approach as that is a nebulous concept itself. In a way, you'd be like one voter in the project, and aren't necessarily any different from an individual voter's gripes with the whole group. I've certainly expressed mine...but the variety and differing opinions is part of what made the the project interesting. (There is a voter thread stickied at the top of the forum as well.)

Personally, I think the results have been less interesting the discussion. A few notes on your convo:

re: A "better" player. I wanted KG over Nash in 05. I think of "value" as being more circumstantial and therefore I give it less weight than simply who gave me a better season. Your approach of just "who is better" at basketball hits a bumpy road with injuries or players sitting out seasons. The whole point is I think Rick Barry gave ANY team a better chance to win than Kareem in 1975. There are a number of reasons for this discussed in the thread. (So yes, you'd still take Kareem in 1975 if you had a draft because if you could get him to play his best he'd trump anyone, but that's not what happened in 1975.)

re: Frazier vs. Reed. I just think some people think Frazier is better than Reed. I had Reed 3rd in both 69 and 70.

re: Havlicek. I vehemently disagree with this. Havlicek was called the captain because, he literally, was the captain. Russell was the head coach. Russell had a MUCH larger impact on the game than Havlicek, mostly with his massive defensive contributions. I find Havlicek's defense to be overrated and think Satch Sanders was clearly Boston's best perimeter player during that period. Furthermore, the Celtics were 0-5 without Russell that year I believe and based on the accounts of just about every player, coach, writer and fan at the time, were a completely different team without him. (They fell apart next year when he left, noticeably on the defensive end.) Havlicek was basically a 6th man (who shot well below league avg). I think Boston would have missed him only slightly.

Anyway, if you read most of the threads this is all hashed out in some detail. I'd recommend the 69 thread, which I'm assuming you haven't read. (Individual threads can be accessed at the bottom of Doctor MJ's first post in this RPOY thread.)

[Doctor MJ]

Sorry maybe my word choice of "pure" wasn't the most appropriate, but I think it comes down to MVP vs. Better Player difference. POY is like the MVP of both the regular season and playoffs. Nonetheless, the MVPs though aren't necessarily the better players. And that's why there is some difference between the 2 .

"pure" wasn't a great choice of words, but if you feel a little annoyed with me focusing in on it, I understand. The gist of what you've said, I agree with.

I agree. I would say that the better basketball player is the player who can help a team win more games. It's not necessarily just individual talent that makes one basketball better than the other. It's taking that individual talent and translating it best into a team game.

Agree. How I tend to put it is that that the best player is the guy who can be made most valuable most easily.

Yes I've always felt as if Garnett has been underrated throughout his career. In fact, I'd probably take a peak Garnett over peak Kobe. However, by 08, it wasn't a peaking Garnett anymore. Kobe was still as or nearly as good as he ever was, and Garnett had clearly dropped from 2004.

Actually, my big issue with Garnett in '08 is the time missed. Seeing his impact on the Celtics, it's hard for me to think of him as an entirely unworthy choice - but Kobe was also worthy and played a lot more for his team.

I would still argue by 68', Havlicek was a better player than Russell. He was being called the "captain" of the team even by Russell. Of course if you factor in Russell's coaching, he was more valuable and made more impact to the Celtics's than Havlicek. However, from a players standpoint, Havlicek had surpassed Russell at least by 69. He was their leading scorer, playmaker, and top perimeter defender. Furthermore, if West had not gotten Finals MVP, I have a strong feeling Havlicek would have. So without being too close to an MVP or clear-cut leading to the championship, I'm not sure how Russell was the POY.

I'd definitely recommend you read through that thread. Feel free to respond in the thread as well. Just because the voting is over, doesn't mean the conversation needs to end.

I'll just say briefly: We saw the Celtics without Russell the next year and it wasn't good. Do you think we'd see a similar drop off with Russell (assuming no further decay) but without Hondo? If so, then your opinion makes total sense to me. For me, I see the Celtics winning titles with dominant defense and mediocre offense, so I'm going to be inclined to favor the guy who is most important to the defense. I think that the guys contributing the mediocre offense are much easier to replace. Granted Hondo was a great defender, but I think clearly of far less value to the defense than Russell.

[Doctor MJ]

not everyone has the pure "MVP" approach as that is a nebulous concept itself. In a way, you'd be like one voter in the project, and aren't necessarily any different from an individual voter's gripes with the whole group. I've certainly expressed mine...but the variety and differing opinions is part of what made the the project interesting. (There is a voter thread stickied at the top of the forum as well.)

This is true. It was rather vainglorious of me to act as if everyone thought the same way I do.

While I have taken issue with some people's votes because they deviate too strongly from the state criteria, I've also tried not to micro-manage too much. The actual MVP voting is left somewhat vague, and what I wanted everyone to understand was that this would be a project along those same lines. I know the way I determine my MVP choice is very specific and not shared by all (or most), I definitely would not want to force it on others.

However with that said, the "best player" award Gifted is talking about is pretty much exactly the issue that just came up with a poster who said that he was going based on what player from that year he'd want, but that if he were asked to give an accomplishment-based vote he would give a different result. (to be clear, I did say it was accomplishment-based at the beginning of this project, so the mix up here was a matter of communication and confusion)

[Gifted Mind]

I read some of the Russell 69 selection thread. The main difference is I don't factor in Russell's coaching impact when discussing who was the best basketball player. 1st of all, there are 2 debates here, best basketball player and POY. But let's just stick to POY since this is what this project is about. Reading through the thread, it's clear that Russell's coaching impact is being considered here. Not saying this is wrong, but personally I think there should be a clear distinction between POY and Coach of the Year. Thus, coaching abilities should not factor into POY. It's the same for best basketball player. When I look at best basketball, I'm specifically looking at what impact he brings from a playing basketball standpoint, not coaching it. That's just what I think, but I can see the opposite argument being made as well.

Thus, in the following year, the Celtics not only lost Russell, but also their coach, who seemed to have great influence on the players. There were many quotes that praised his coaching. Losing a defensive anchor plus a strong coach can cause great drop in wins.

Essentially, if you separate Russell's coaching from his playing, he is not POY or best player imo. In fact, Havlicek was the favorite to win Finals MVP after Jerry West. I saw a quote indicating that as well. In modern times Havlicek would have probably won the Finals MVP. Thus, Russell did not have a finals performance as great as Havlicek either. He still would have a ring, but it's still not a very highly accomplished year. And from a basketball standpoint, he was nowhere near the scorer he used to be. In fact, 9.9ppg in 43mpg while shooting 43/53, I would call him a below average scorer and I'm being nice, because he did have some nice scoring games in the playoffs. He was a solid scorer in his prime, but at age 35 he was below averaging in the aspect of the game that is most important to evaluating an individual player. His defense was still obviously strong, but not as strong as it used to be in his prime. He even had his worst rebounding year. With a lack of display of accomplishments (West outmatched him there) and even individual dominance, I really can't see Russell as POY.

In fact, as I said earlier, ignoring coaching aspects, Havlicek was the best player in Boston. He was their leading scorer and playmaker. A combination like this is almost a lock for being the best player. Furthermore, he was their best perimeter defender and 3rd in rebounding. I can't imagine any other player in NBA History who was the best in so many important areas yet not best player on the team. Factor this in with he was their best performer in the Finals, and it is a lock. Literally. Russell still might have been very dominant on defense, but Havlicek just has way too many things going for him.


With all of that said, if you did include Russell's coaching, then I would say he had more impact than Havlicek in Boston, and thus they fell apart after he left. But it would be awkward to say Russell is the best player in Boston because of coaching. Because as I said earlier, I like to make a distinction between playing and coaching basketball.

[Jimmy76]

Maybe I remember it wrong but I don't think it was Russels coaching so much as his insane on court defensive impact which remained despite a drop in box score stats

It's backed by the notion that the Celtics fell off a cliff defensively and went from winning a ring to not making playoffs not to mention the 0-5 without Russel

If Hondo had more to do with their success than Russel we would have seen different results

[Gifted Mind]

Maybe I remember it wrong but I don't think it was Russels coaching so much as his insane on court defensive impact which remained despite a drop in box score stats

It's backed by the notion that the Celtics fell off a cliff defensively and went from winning a ring to not making playoffs not to mention the 0-5 without Russel

If Hondo had more to do with their success than Russel we would have seen different results

Well as I said earlier, remove Russell and you lose your defensive anchor and strong head coach. That will cause more impact on the team than anything else.

[Doctor MJ]

I've said before, I don't buy that Russell the coach had anywhere near the impact that Russell the player had. I mean think about this: Russell the coach inherited a system developed by Auerbach based around Russell's ability to control a defense. And of course, that's what fell apart when Russell left. Do you really think that there's any evidence at all that Russell was extremely gifted at developing entirely new schemes that don't make use of a dominant big man?

Now, you might say "Well, Russell was clearly a coach on the floor directing the defense", but that's a player role which Russell was doing well before Auerbach's retirement. It doesn't make sense to make any more sense to take that away from Russell the player than it does to knock intangible impact away from any player that's not a coach.

Re: Russell's scoring those last couple years. I think it's a great example of the fact that when you're not producing efficiently, you can reduce your role without major consequence. (Of course Russell was still out there for huge amounts of time, and it wasn't that his decreased scoring gave him the opportunity to play checkers out there, so we're not talking about an across the bard decrease in role) It's easy to see Hondo scoring 30 points in a playoff game and think "What would Russell do without Havlicek?", but the reality is that that team offense was not good, and Hondo was never what anyone would call an elite scorer. For goodness sake, in '68-69, he has a TS% of 45.9, that's unspeakably bad, and really not hard to replace. Not saying an injury to Hondo couldn't cost them a ring, but a drop to anything like 35 wins? Nah.

[Sedale Threatt]

Finals MVPs don't necessarily mean anything.

[Gifted Mind]

I've said before, I don't buy that Russell the coach had anywhere near the impact that Russell the player had. I mean think about this: Russell the coach inherited a system developed by Auerbach based around Russell's ability to control a defense. And of course, that's what fell apart when Russell left. Do you really think that there's any evidence at all that Russell was extremely gifted at developing entirely new schemes that don't make use of a dominant big man?

After further thought, I suppose it's not a stretch to give Russell the POY. Because the coaching system was based on Russell. And if Russell leaves, the coaching system collapses, and the team is impacted the most. Thus, it's ultimately Russell who will impact the team the most. It's analogous to Nash and the Suns. He also finishes high in the POY/MVP rankings because his team has a system so that he can impact the most. Even when Nash went down on his MVP seasons, the team struggled just like they did when Russell went down in 69. Thus ultimately, he was the man because he was allowed to make the most impact on his team across the league.

Nonetheless, just like Nash, I would still not say Russell was the best basketball player in the NBA though. Sure in Boston he was the best player possible. Just like Nash was for Phoenix in his MVP seasons. But his lack of ability to score really put him at a disadvantage compared to other elite players. Remember, this is not POY anymore. Though I still see a 35 year old Russell doing great in Boston, in many other teams not so much with a different coaching system.


And just for the record, I do really respect Russell and his abilities and consider him one of the GOAT.

[Doctor MJ]

After further thought, I suppose it's not a stretch to give Russell the POY. Because the coaching system was based on Russell. And if Russell leaves, the coaching system collapses, and the team is impacted the most. Thus, it's ultimately Russell who will impact the team the most. It's analogous to Nash and the Suns. He also finishes high in the POY/MVP rankings because his team has a system so that he can impact the most. Even when Nash went down on his MVP seasons, the team struggled just like they did when Russell went down in 69. Thus ultimately, he was the man because he was allowed to make the most impact on his team across the league.

Nonetheless, just like Nash, I would still not say Russell was the best basketball player in the NBA though. Sure in Boston he was the best player possible. Just like Nash was for Phoenix in his MVP seasons. But his lack of ability to score really put him at a disadvantage compared to other elite players. Remember, this is not POY anymore. Though I still see a 35 year old Russell doing great in Boston, in many other teams not so much with a different coaching system.

And just for the record, I do really respect Russell and his abilities and consider him one of the GOAT.

Another reasonable post. I do understand where you're coming from.

[ronnymac2]

I guess this would be a good time to write this. I've been meaning to......

I really like the Nash/Russell comparison. In the 2005 RPOY, I wrote about my thoughts on Nash. Here- http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1008218&start=240

An important point I tried to make was this: Dependence does not make one player better than another. Just because team A is more dependent on player A' than team B is dependent on player B' doesn't mean player A' is a better basketball player than player B'.

Bill Russell and Steve Nash are similar in that regard. They have great talent, and they are amazing basketball players. And they are extremely valuable to their respective teams. Without them, those successful teams absolutely fall apart. They lose their base, and their structure crumbles. Dust. Nothingness. I honestly think the 2005 Suns would be a lottery team without Steve Nash. We've seen what happens when Boston loses even an old Bill Russell.

I'm starting to think Bill Russell is the Most Valuable Player in NBA history. HIS skillset, HIS mentality, what HE impacted- it was all perfect for Boston's system. Everybody always asks if you can replace Russell with another top C in NBA history and still produce 11 titles. The normal answer is no. I agree. Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Walton, Jabbar, Moses are great, great centers on Russell's level talent-wise. But they don't fit as perfectly as Russell. I'm not sure anybody could replicate what he did for that team. You'd have to change the team around if you replaced Russell in that system.

Does that make Russell better? Because he was the Most Valuable, does that make him the best? He could be, but being the Most Valuable doesn't need to mean being the best. I think people are doing a damn good job separating these things in this project, but these upcoming years will get tough, because like I said, Russell is the Most Valuable of them all.

In all honesty, I'd probably give Bill Russell the Most Valuable Player award in 1967 for the REG SEA. That 60-win team would have won less games without him than Wilt's team would without Wilt. Wilt's team was stacked with talent.

Now, who was better? Wilt imo. He wasn't more valuable than Russell to his team specifically, but he was the better basketball player. That's why I'm voting for Chamberlain at number one in 1967.

When a player is most valuable for this team, he has an inherent advantage against player B whose team is less reliant on him. Why? Because all of his in-game advantages are brought into light for everybody to see. His talent is more pronounced. It is hard to decipher who is better- which will make the next few years very interesting (68 was an amazing thread).

[Gifted Mind]

I guess this would be a good time to write this. I've been meaning to......

I really like the Nash/Russell comparison. In the 2005 RPOY, I wrote about my thoughts on Nash. Here- http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1008218&start=240

An important point I tried to make was this: Dependence does not make one player better than another. Just because team A is more dependent on player A' than team B is dependent on player B' doesn't mean player A' is a better basketball player than player B'.

Bill Russell and Steve Nash are similar in that regard. They have great talent, and they are amazing basketball players. And they are extremely valuable to their respective teams. Without them, those successful teams absolutely fall apart. They lose their base, and their structure crumbles. Dust. Nothingness. I honestly think the 2005 Suns would be a lottery team without Steve Nash. We've seen what happens when Boston loses even an old Bill Russell.

I'm starting to think Bill Russell is the Most Valuable Player in NBA history. HIS skillset, HIS mentality, what HE impacted- it was all perfect for Boston's system. Everybody always asks if you can replace Russell with another top C in NBA history and still produce 11 titles. The normal answer is no. I agree. Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Walton, Jabbar, Moses are great, great centers on Russell's level talent-wise. But they don't fit as perfectly as Russell. I'm not sure anybody could replicate what he did for that team. You'd have to change the team around if you replaced Russell in that system.

Does that make Russell better? Because he was the Most Valuable, does that make him the best? He could be, but being the Most Valuable doesn't need to mean being the best. I think people are doing a damn good job separating these things in this project, but these upcoming years will get tough, because like I said, Russell is the Most Valuable of them all.

In all honesty, I'd probably give Bill Russell the Most Valuable Player award in 1967 for the REG SEA. That 60-win team would have won less games without him than Wilt's team would without Wilt. Wilt's team was stacked with talent.

Now, who was better? Wilt imo. He wasn't more valuable than Russell to his team specifically, but he was the better basketball player. That's why I'm voting for Chamberlain at number one in 1967.

When a player is most valuable for this team, he has an inherent advantage against player B whose team is less reliant on him. Why? Because all of his in-game advantages are brought into light for everybody to see. His talent is more pronounced. It is hard to decipher who is better- which will make the next few years very interesting (68 was an amazing thread).

Great Post. I agree with almost everything. I think at the end of the day, there are subtle differences in even MVP and POY. In fact, if we really were judging who was the most valuable (to his team), then Russell would win every year. Thus, the MVP award itself really doesn't go to which player was most valuable. Otherwise, Russell would have won that every season as well. At the end of the day, MVP of RS and Playoffs or POY, would go to the most valuable player who also accomplished the most. This is why Wilt wins POY in 67. He was also the better player, but I think POY combines value with accomplishments, thus giving it attributes of MVP as well.

Thus as far as POY goes in the upcoming years, I think Russell will and should take most of them based on the definition I just used. In fact, in many of those years I think he was the better basketball player as well. His intangibles, and Wilt's lack of intangibles especially early on in his career give Russell a decisive edge.

[Doctor MJ]

Does that make Russell better? Because he was the Most Valuable, does that make him the best? He could be, but being the Most Valuable doesn't need to mean being the best. I think people are doing a damn good job separating these things in this project, but these upcoming years will get tough, because like I said, Russell is the Most Valuable of them all.

In all honesty, I'd probably give Bill Russell the Most Valuable Player award in 1967 for the REG SEA. That 60-win team would have won less games without him than Wilt's team would without Wilt. Wilt's team was stacked with talent.

Now, who was better? Wilt imo. He wasn't more valuable than Russell to his team specifically, but he was the better basketball player. That's why I'm voting for Chamberlain at number one in 1967.

When a player is most valuable for this team, he has an inherent advantage against player B whose team is less reliant on him. Why? Because all of his in-game advantages are brought into light for everybody to see. His talent is more pronounced. It is hard to decipher who is better- which will make the next few years very interesting (68 was an amazing thread).

Okay, so the stuff we are dealing with here is tough. Very, very abstract the nuances.

I'll be honest I'm a little nervous we're having this discussion so far into the project because I'm not sure where it will go, but it is good we have discussions like this to bring more to light the arbitrary elements of this project.

I'm still hazy on exactly how you see "best player". Other people have defined it in a way that makes it not fit with this project, but your voting record suggests you are definitely factoring in the success of the season, so I don't really see a problem.

Let me share why I'll be voting for Wilt in '67. While one may argue that Russell provided more raw lift to his team (added the most wins), it's harder to lift a good team than a bad one. While I don't want to preclude the possibility of the best player being on a mediocre team, I think there is definitely a tendency to get too excited over what guys do on those mediocre teams.

Wilt's playing resulted in one of the great team seasons in all of history this year. When a team gets to a certain level of success, if becomes dangerous to focus too much the actual amount of games won (though obviously the 76ers this year won a lot of games). The reality is that we see a cap on how many games a team can win that it doesn't really make sense to attribute to diminishing returns. Anyway, quibbling about supporting cast when you are by far the most important player on an all-time great team seems silly to me unless you're truly convinced that somebody else could have done better. Given that accomplishment, Wilt's an easy choice for me.

Now on the other side of things, I think people are too quick to dismiss a player great value to one team when considering who is the better player. It's absolutely true that the most valuable guy can simply be lucky to be in the right situation, but I think there tends to be less luck than people think. Consider Wilt & Russell in '69. Some tend to think that Russell was great on the Celtics, but think he'd be much less valuable on other teams compared to someone like Wilt. Well, Wilt goes to the Lakers, and he basically doesn't help the team at all. He eventually gets the point where he contributes big value, but not at first.

What do we think Russell would have done in that situation? I think the team wins the title easily. I think Russell's preeminence on defense makes it quite clear how to make changes to the defense that immediately results in the defense becoming great. I think the existing knowledge that you don't need to build the offense around him, and that he'll just work to get the ball to the scorers at the start of the possession makes it easy for him to a modest positive impact there. And I think this "easier to use" aspect of Russell makes him a better fit on really any team that has an offense that isn't inept.

If Russell's more valuable, and easier to fit in to other teams, how is he not the better player?

Last, you mentioned Nash. Of course you know I'm a Nash fan (and it's probably helpful for others to consider I may have a bias). I think part of what Nash suffers from when people look at his value vs general goodness is a tendency to think about him plugged into someone else's team, while they tend to look at some other players as more standard build-around players. We've seen now in Phoenix tremendous turnover on his team with new lowly regarded players constantly coming in and looking good. It sure doesn't look like it's very hard to acquire the talent to put around Nash to make a team like Phoenix. Yes, if you put him in a team with an existing star player and tell him to play a different way it reduces his impact, but the same thing is true of other players. Put any two volume scorers together, and you're bound to reduce the impact of at least one of them.

[ronnymac2]

Okay, so the stuff we are dealing with here is tough. Very, very abstract the nuances.

I'll be honest I'm a little nervous we're having this discussion so far into the project because I'm not sure where it will go, but it is good we have discussions like this to bring more to light the arbitrary elements of this project.

I'm still hazy on exactly how you see "best player". Other people have defined it in a way that makes it not fit with this project, but your voting record suggests you are definitely factoring in the success of the season, so I don't really see a problem.

No need to be nervous. I don't take the most talented player in the league for a season. I don't take the most valuable. I take the best player.

If I were to take the most talented, I'd be like a certain poster and take Wilt every single year. If I thought like that, then even in years where a player gets injured and misses his team's playoff run, my criteria would force me to choose that player. What I've been doing is completely disregarding anybody who was injured and missed the playoffs (Ex: Jerry West recently).

I'm taking the player who played the best in a certain year. Who's overall package that was displayed for a particular year do I deem worthy of being selected for my team in a vacuum? It COULD be the most talented player that year. It COULD be my Most Valuable Player for that year. It doesn't need to be either though.

Let me share why I'll be voting for Wilt in '67. While one may argue that Russell provided more raw lift to his team (added the most wins), it's harder to lift a good team than a bad one. While I don't want to preclude the possibility of the best player being on a mediocre team, I think there is definitely a tendency to get too excited over what guys do on those mediocre teams.

Wilt's playing resulted in one of the great team seasons in all of history this year. When a team gets to a certain level of success, if becomes dangerous to focus too much the actual amount of games won (though obviously the 76ers this year won a lot of games). The reality is that we see a cap on how many games a team can win that it doesn't really make sense to attribute to diminishing returns. Anyway, quibbling about supporting cast when you are by far the most important player on an all-time great team seems silly to me unless you're truly convinced that somebody else could have done better. Given that accomplishment, Wilt's an easy choice for me.

That's true. Like I said though, I'm voting Wilt at number one in 67. I mean....he had a Perfect Storm year. Unlike in 68 where there was ample reason to take another player (I took Wilt, but others had an argument), there is no real reason to take another player this year over Wilt.

Now on the other side of things, I think people are too quick to dismiss a player great value to one team when considering who is the better player. It's absolutely true that the most valuable guy can simply be lucky to be in the right situation, but I think there tends to be less luck than people think. Consider Wilt & Russell in '69. Some tend to think that Russell was great on the Celtics, but think he'd be much less valuable on other teams compared to someone like Wilt. Well, Wilt goes to the Lakers, and he basically doesn't help the team at all. He eventually gets the point where he contributes big value, but not at first.

What do we think Russell would have done in that situation? I think the team wins the title easily. I think Russell's preeminence on defense makes it quite clear how to make changes to the defense that immediately results in the defense becoming great. I think the existing knowledge that you don't need to build the offense around him, and that he'll just work to get the ball to the scorers at the start of the possession makes it easy for him to a modest positive impact there. And I think this "easier to use" aspect of Russell makes him a better fit on really any team that has an offense that isn't inept.

If Russell's more valuable, and easier to fit in to other teams, how is he not the better player?

I voted Russell ahead of Wilt in 1969. Wilt is CLEARLY more talented. Russell is CLEARLY more valuable to his particular team. I went with Russell because I felt Wilt didn't use his talent as well as Russell, and Russell's talent and ability on the court were still good enough to get me a title. Plus...Russell won a title. I'd take what Russell brings me that year in a vacuum over what Wilt does. I can't fully trust Wilt in 1969, and I'm one who feels Wilt is getting a bit of a bad rap. haha

Last, you mentioned Nash. Of course you know I'm a Nash fan (and it's probably helpful for others to consider I may have a bias). I think part of what Nash suffers from when people look at his value vs general goodness is a tendency to think about him plugged into someone else's team, while they tend to look at some other players as more standard build-around players. We've seen now in Phoenix tremendous turnover on his team with new lowly regarded players constantly coming in and looking good. It sure doesn't look like it's very hard to acquire the talent to put around Nash to make a team like Phoenix. Yes, if you put him in a team with an existing star player and tell him to play a different way it reduces his impact, but the same thing is true of other players. Put any two volume scorers together, and you're bound to reduce the impact of at least one of them.

Russell's squads had great turnover as well. I think it is great that you can put replaceable pieces around these guys and basically always have a successful team because of what they give you as a constant.

[Manuel Calavera]

Okay, so the stuff we are dealing with here is tough. Very, very abstract the nuances.

I'll be honest I'm a little nervous we're having this discussion so far into the project because I'm not sure where it will go, but it is good we have discussions like this to bring more to light the arbitrary elements of this project.

I'm still hazy on exactly how you see "best player". Other people have defined it in a way that makes it not fit with this project, but your voting record suggests you are definitely factoring in the success of the season, so I don't really see a problem.

No need to be nervous. I don't take the most talented player in the league for a season. I don't take the most valuable. I take the best player.

If I were to take the most talented, I'd be like a certain poster and take Wilt every single year. If I thought like that, then even in years where a player gets injured and misses his team's playoff run, my criteria would force me to choose that player. What I've been doing is completely disregarding anybody who was injured and missed the playoffs (Ex: Jerry West recently).

I'm taking the player who played the best in a certain year. Who's overall package that was displayed for a particular year do I deem worthy of being selected for my team in a vacuum? It COULD be the most talented player that year. It COULD be my Most Valuable Player for that year. It doesn't need to be either though.

Seems like me and you have very similar criteria.

[ElGee]

I guess this would be a good time to write this. I've been meaning to......

I really like the Nash/Russell comparison. In the 2005 RPOY, I wrote about my thoughts on Nash. Here- http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1008218&start=240

An important point I tried to make was this: Dependence does not make one player better than another. Just because team A is more dependent on player A' than team B is dependent on player B' doesn't mean player A' is a better basketball player than player B'.

Bill Russell and Steve Nash are similar in that regard. They have great talent, and they are amazing basketball players. And they are extremely valuable to their respective teams. Without them, those successful teams absolutely fall apart. They lose their base, and their structure crumbles. Dust. Nothingness. I honestly think the 2005 Suns would be a lottery team without Steve Nash. We've seen what happens when Boston loses even an old Bill Russell.

I'm starting to think Bill Russell is the Most Valuable Player in NBA history. HIS skillset, HIS mentality, what HE impacted- it was all perfect for Boston's system. Everybody always asks if you can replace Russell with another top C in NBA history and still produce 11 titles. The normal answer is no. I agree. Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Walton, Jabbar, Moses are great, great centers on Russell's level talent-wise. But they don't fit as perfectly as Russell. I'm not sure anybody could replicate what he did for that team. You'd have to change the team around if you replaced Russell in that system.

Does that make Russell better? Because he was the Most Valuable, does that make him the best? He could be, but being the Most Valuable doesn't need to mean being the best. I think people are doing a damn good job separating these things in this project, but these upcoming years will get tough, because like I said, Russell is the Most Valuable of them all.

In all honesty, I'd probably give Bill Russell the Most Valuable Player award in 1967 for the REG SEA. That 60-win team would have won less games without him than Wilt's team would without Wilt. Wilt's team was stacked with talent.

Now, who was better? Wilt imo. He wasn't more valuable than Russell to his team specifically, but he was the better basketball player. That's why I'm voting for Chamberlain at number one in 1967.

When a player is most valuable for this team, he has an inherent advantage against player B whose team is less reliant on him. Why? Because all of his in-game advantages are brought into light for everybody to see. His talent is more pronounced. It is hard to decipher who is better- which will make the next few years very interesting (68 was an amazing thread).

Focusing on the bolded text: I see it a little differently.

Any team which is built around/dependent on one player enhances that players value. It's value that is dictated by circumstance and may exceed how we think of a player in a vacuum. Think of a "glue guy," a centerpiece, a "system player," or someone on a horrible team even. To me, the best player, almost by definition, is the one who, on average, would help teams the most if he were put in 100 different circumstances and played 30 different teams 1000 times each. That's extremely different from most valuable. I could come up with a situation where the 25th best player in the league could be the most "valuable" to his team based on W/L or +/- with/without him. I've discussed this before with the difference between raising a team from 10 to 30 wins and from 50 to 70 wins.

In Nash's case, I think he was quite literally less valuable, relative to his talent, in Dallas, based on circumstance. Removing Nash -- a fantastic offensive point guard EVEN in Big D -- from a good offensive team, didn't hurt the offense too much. (Still, they dropped 4.9 relative points!) Hey, you take LeBron James off the East All-Stars and they're still pretty darn good. Then he had some years in Phoenix where he was the center piece of the offense, and that almost provided an offensive baseline which would go up or down down depending on the quality of his teammates. And it was an historically high baseline - they were either the best offense by a little, or by a lot.

I think most people -- and many in the project -- tend to view Nash too heavily toward the "he was just valuable, not good" side. And it may be true, that if we ran our 100 different circumstances versus 30 different teams 1000 times each, Nash's teams on average wouldn't do as well as the setup he's had in Phoenix. But the reality is, he's still really freaking good, independent of value/circumstance, and to ding someone because he was the driving force behind the most successful offenses in NBA history seems more and more bizarre every day. That's like saying Magic Johnson wasn't that good without showtime.

For Russell, I see significantly less circumstantial value than in Nash's case. I think on any team, not only would he have had a similar intangible effect, but how would he not be having the same defensive effect? Maybe a coach or two couldn't maximize it (eg trapping/gambling more with Russell behind), but in general, dating back to USF, if you put Bill Russell on the floor he was photon torpedo on defense. One college recruited him, and he led them to 2 national titles and a 60-game winning streak. He was doing stuff defensively people didn't even think of, so it's difficult to fathom how he wouldn't have done that for every team he landed on in the NBA...

Where people are mentally trapped, I assume, is that his game wouldn't translate to today's game as well. We can't grasp that an individual could have that much impact defensively, and as a result tend to explain away his success as circumstantial or due to quality of teammates. The more I learn about the 60s, the more I think Russell was having the largest impact on the game, and would have had such an impact anywhere he went.

There were a plethora of good offensive players in the 9-team league, but how many defensive game-changers? Three? And Wilt, when he brought it defensively, was probably still behind Thurmond. And Thurmond was a notch behind Russell, both from what we can infer statistically, and from anecdote/film/reputation. We're talking about an extreme outlier. Then on offense, you never have to worry about balance because he's always trying to play the optimal team game. So given that, what team wouldn't improve in a constant manner in the 1960s by swapping Bill Russell in at center?

In other words, in my 1000x simulation, wouldn't Russell actually have very little variance in how much he impacted teams? And that's not circumstantial value. It's quite the opposite.

PS I think in 1967, at least relative to 67 Russell, Wilt did enough on offense to offset a smaller gap on defense than we'll see in other years. I can buy a vote for Russell for MVP in 1967 (just like I'd vote Nash for MVP in 2006), but I think Wilt was the best player that year. Of course, he was a stat whore and his game, skill-wise and physically, translate to any era, so no one really needs to think too hard about Chamberlain...

EDIT: I see Doc echoed some of what I said in his long post. Apologies -- my bad habit of leaving the realgm console open all day...

[Gifted Mind]

Any team which is built around/dependent on one player enhances that players value. It's value that is dictated by circumstance and may exceed how we think of a player in a vacuum. Think of a "glue guy," a centerpiece, a "system player," or someone on a horrible team even. To me, the best player, almost by definition, is the one who, on average, would help teams the most if he were put in 100 different circumstances and played 30 different teams 1000 times each.

That's nearly my definition of best player. It's close to what ronnymac said as well, since in a vacuum you should be ready to take on any kind of team. And maybe that is what many voted based upon; who was the best player. But POY, as far as I have understood, is more best season rather than best player. So there maybe some conflict of views, however, I think in general the results in this project converge towards POY (so no worries Doctor MJ). Because there are many instances where it's clear the best player was not being selected for a particular year, rather the best season was selected. Or the MVP of RS and Playoffs. Or the player with the most value and accomplishments a given season. All related to POY. Not Best Player.


I agree with your comments about Russell as well. I would still consider him the best player many seasons.

[Dr Positivity]

My criteria from the beginning has been which season in a vacuum gets you closest to a title. I try to eliminate all variables except the player's season. For tough years I've thought well if I drafted these seasons with everything else unknown, which would be my top 5 picks? This is why like ronnymac I don't even consider guys who aren't there for the playoffs. Those seasons don't help you get a title at all.

On the '69 discussion - I have Jerry West as the best player in the NBA at that point, but it's by a slim margin over Russell, Oscar, Wilt, Reed. So with the GP difference West fell a harsh drop to 5

KG in 08 I might take back in favor of Paul if I had the chance. With that said he was still a 25 PER DPOY with Russell like leadership and intangibles - and before his injury was in the MVP conversation. So he's still a top 3-4 player in production + unbelievable mental impact on the team.

Kareem in 75 got underrated IMO. Especially with the way for example 69 West racked up #1 votes. His 17 missed games got treated like 30. Believe I had Kareem #3 in 75 behind Barry and Erving