penbeast0 wrote:In terms of team impact it was. He took the Bullets from last in the Eastern Conference to a 20+ game improvement for best in the league record in 69 . . . better than Russell's last hurrah in Boston (though if the postseason counted, Russell would get MVP admittedly), better than Wilt/Baylor/West in LA, better than Reed/DeBusschere/Frazier in NY (they would gell in 1970) . . . he did it with only average scoring (13ppg), great man defense, pretty good help defense (his knee injuries cut his mobility badly by the mid 70s), GOAT level pick setting, great outlet passing, and leadership.
Walton was the better player in his MVP season -- better scorer, better help defender, better post passer, though he missed 16 games and wasn't as strong a man defender as Unseld's MVP year nor was he as quick getting down the floor. But clearly a better player -- still, it wasn't that much better than Unseld's and, if you look at what he actually meant to the two franchises he played on as a starter rather than what might have been you will see that other than that one season, he basically left them rudderless every playoff as he was a player (salary, trade value, etc.) you built around and with a really hard skill set to replace. So, 1 GREAT year (MVP and Finals MVP) and 7 times your team crashes and burns or 10 very good years (including one MVP and one Finals MVP) plus face of the franchise (and still is that to this day in Washington). Oh, and Unseld had serious knee injuries one after another (he was built like a wall, hard to carry that kind of weight with the kind of active game he played) so he never fully lived up to his MVP promise either, but unlike Walton, he was still very valuable.
A few important points:
1) Did UNSELD do that or did his team do that, with Unseld as the best player? That's a huge difference. The thing about Walton that completely stood out and screamed "GOAT-level!" about his peak was the utter obviousness that it was him, and pretty clearly ONLY him, that separated his team from average to champion. Now, the reason that it was obvious was because his injury history made the transition points of him being in and out glaring (something that clearly wasn't desirable or easily repeatable from other players).
With Unseld, from the RPoY project, I remember coming away feeling mildly "meh". That he was very good, but just in the argument of better players in the league. With Walton, I came away feeling like at his best he was THE best, even over a prime Kareem. If my impressions are correct, then that's a pretty wonking huge difference at peak.
2) Saying "yeah, Walton had a historic season and led his team to a title in one of the more magical ways we've ever seen, BUT other than that..." is a pretty unconvincing counter-argument to me at this stage. In fact, it's VERY unconvincing to me. With Portland, we are talking the ONLY championship in franchise history, and it being almost solely attributable to Walton. Walton wasn't the best player on a title team...he MADE that team a title team. Considering he was only on the team 5 years, that is a HUGE return-on-investment even if they didn't win a game in the other 4 years. But when you figure that it was a separate season in which Walton led the team to a stretch of 50 wins in 60 games and garnered an MVP, that just seals it. Injuries or not, Walton gave the Blazers the best 2-year stretch in franchise history and their only title. They more than made out in this deal. And that isn't even factoring in the questions about whether Portland's training staff was incompetent, as Walton alleged, which of course would up their culpability even further.
And as for the Clippers, they knew what they were getting. Walton had played in 209 of a possible 410 games before the Clippers signed him. It's not like they signed him innocent then were blindsided that he was injury prone and willing to sit out. It'd be like someone building their entire franchise around Greg Oden today, then claiming hurt disappointment if he flared out due to injury. No real reason for sympathy there.
3) So for me, bottom line, I need to see a lot more to feel like Unseld's impact was anywhere near Walton's at his peak. That isn't to say that Unseld shouldn't be getting on the list too, it could be time. But there's a big difference between being a great player and worthy of a nomination, and even mentioning his peak in the same sentence as Walton's. As yet, I still haven't seen anything to suggest there "wasn't much difference" between their bests unless all MVP-level seasons on title teams are created roughly equally. In which case Dave Cowens' peak isn't much different than Russell's or Kareem's.
