Retro Player of the Year 1970-71 UPDATE — Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

[Owly]

5 -Bob Love I don't know anything about Bob Love but he had the best stats on another 50-win team so I'll just pick him.

Bob Love has the most minutes. With a fair lead over the best production guys.

That said among the top 4 minutes guys ...

2 look better by box aggregates then a third lags behind my about as much as the average gap between him and the other two guys but has a very strong intangible and defense rep (though some like Love's D, too).

player: PER; WS/48
Boerwinkle: 20.4; .182
Walker: 18.9; .178
Love: 17.0; .137
Sloan: 14.6; .092

fwiw Jim Fox is in the TB, CW vicinity for rate production but on lower minutes.

Walker is a bit better than Love pretty much across the board from the forward slots. Slightly higher rate of scoring, v. slightly higher rebounding, slightly higher assists, more accurate from the field and the line and get's to the line proportionally more (relate to fg) and rate more (per minute).

It's not an unsurpassable gap if you like Love's non-box (e.g. defense) that much better. But his stats are really only better if you care about counting stat accumulation through minutes. Even WS (above .000 - an awfully low baseline) see's Walker ahead.

[IlikeSHAIguys]

5 -Bob Love I don't know anything about Bob Love but he had the best stats on another 50-win team so I'll just pick him.

Bob Love has the most minutes. With a fair lead over the best production guys.

That said among the top 4 minutes guys ...

2 look better by box aggregates then a third lags behind my about as much as the average gap between him and the other two guys but has a very strong intangible and defense rep (though some like Love's D, too).

player: PER; WS/48
Boerwinkle: 20.4; .182
Walker: 18.9; .178
Love: 17.0; .137
Sloan: 14.6; .092

fwiw Jim Fox is in the TB, CW vicinity for rate production but on lower minutes.

Walker is a bit better than Love pretty much across the board from the forward slots. Slightly higher rate of scoring, v. slightly higher rebounding, slightly higher assists, more accurate from the field and the line and get's to the line proportionally more (relate to fg) and rate more (per minute).

It's not an unsurpassable gap if you like Love's non-box (e.g. defense) that much better. But his stats are really only better if you care about counting stat accumulation through minutes. Even WS (above .000 - an awfully low baseline) see's Walker ahead.

Think Ill change my vote to Walker. Thanks.

[trelos6]

Winning matters? Sure. Rephrasing "erneh rings" as "cieling raisier" so you can pretend you're not just using team-success as an argument inofitself? No.

I had Oscar 5 last season. So he was obviously still great. This season he was 4 (largely because West’s post season injury). But still, better crop of players, Oscar gets older, holding onto 5th can be seen as improvement.

Yes, his scoring dropped. He was playing with talent. I believe his passing was improved (perks of playing with better talent). Overall playmaking is down slightly because scoring is a big factor in that. His defence was much improved because when your team is great, you generally play harder on D.

If you ignore everything else and put a carbon copy Oscar 69-70 on this ‘71 Bucks team, his extra shots might take away from the overall flow on offense. His weaker point of attack D would probably knock down the Bucks overall D.

Team success is in fact one of the few indicators we have. Of course the best floor raisers are also typically the best ceiling raisers. Because they are after all “the best players”. However, play style is hugely important. Second banana’s need to fit the superstar. I’m rewarding Oscar for playing on one of the top 5 teams in history.

[penbeast0]

I think that was a case of you needing to re-evaluate Kobe's team mates.

Nope, I thought of Kobe as an Iverson type with better size. Poor efficiency, selfish play, resting on defense, being grossly overrated due to pure scoring value, only won because of playing with Shaq (sort of like Oscar winning because of playing with Kareem rather than Lucas). He proved me wrong. Pau had strong playoffs, Odom was more consistent, Bynum played like he cared, but Kobe was the clearcut alpha on that squad and I would have predicted it to be a .550 team with a 2nd round out at the best.

[One_and_Done]

I think that was a case of you needing to re-evaluate Kobe's team mates.

Nope, I thought of Kobe as an Iverson type with better size. Poor efficiency, selfish play, resting on defense, being grossly overrated due to pure scoring value, only won because of playing with Shaq (sort of like Oscar winning because of playing with Kareem rather than Lucas). He proved me wrong. Pau had strong playoffs, Odom was more consistent, Bynum played like he cared, but Kobe was the clearcut alpha on that squad and I would have predicted it to be a .550 team with a 2nd round out at the best.

I mean, I still feel like the issue was mostly that you needed to reassess his teammates. Pau led three straight 50ish win teams in the West only 2 years prior. Odom was 2nd best player on a playoff team before going to LA. Bynum was seen as an up and coming all-star big and got a max contract which would have been deserved if he could have just stayed healthy. Ariza/Artest were excellent wings. Fisher was above average. That team would have been above 550. even without Kobe.

[OhayoKD]

Winning matters? Sure. Rephrasing "erneh rings" as "cieling raisier" so you can pretend you're not just using team-success as an argument inofitself? No.

Team success is in fact one of the few indicators we have.

Team Success only matters to someone's "ceiling raising" to the degree they are impacting that better team. Oscar went to a better team...and his signals were significantly worse. You do not show cieling raising by being on great teams, you show it by showcasing great impact on great teams. If you cannot argue for a player being more valuable to said great team than another player would be, you are not arguing for cieling raising. An older Oscar being less impactful on a better team does not demonstrate a ceiling raising advantage over the younger Oscar.

However, play style is hugely important

As is actually verifying your play-style preferences with reality, as opposed to what convention assumes. Which I'm guessing you've not actually made an attempt at doing.

Yes, his scoring dropped. He was playing with talent.

Typically playing with talent sees your volume drop in exchange for an uptick in efficiency. The latter part is missing. "He couldn't keep doing the thing he did as well when playing with talent" is of course, not a pro-cieling raising argument.

I believe his passing was improved (perks of playing with better talent). Overall playmaking is down slightly because scoring is a big factor in tha

So let me get this straight. He was...a less productive scorer. And, iyo...a less productive playmaker, playing next to an offensive engine who doesn't need the ball much and skews towards effeciency rather than volume...with no improvement in effeciency...

and you think him becoming less valuable in every concievable way offensively demonstrates he's a "cieling raisier"?

His defence was much improved because when your team is great, you generally play harder on D.

And this is based on? Sure...you can play harder on D. Many players of course play less hard when they no longer need to thanks to strong defensive teammates. See: Jordan during the first-three-peat. Also see: Bird during his MVP streak. Also if you are going to be making procastinations of impact based on skillset, now's a good time to remember guards are far and away the least valuable defenders.

Thus far you've described an offensive specialist getting less valuable as both a playmaker and scorer offensively...and theoretically getting better at the thing that has the least to do with their impact based on a convention which I am hoping is not just an unsupported assumption.

Incredible ceiling raising case here.

Second banana’s need to fit the superstar. I’m rewarding Oscar for playing on one of the top 5 teams in history.

Cieling Raising is about whether you have to be a second banana to fit better teams...not whether you play on one of the top 5 teams in history

[One_and_Done]

1. Kareem

2. Frazier
3. West
4. Wilt
5. Zelmo

Pretty easy #1. Kareem improved off his rookie year, and even rookie Kareem would be #1 here. The next 4 are trickier. Frazier's a fairly easy #2, but the others I'm less sure of. I worry I should have Zelmo higher. For now I'm going with these 5, but will re-evaluate as other posts come in. As I noted last thread, the evidence is pretty clear Frazier was the real MVP of the Knicks.

[penbeast0]

...
Cieling Raising is about whether you have to be a second banana to fit better teams...not whether you play on one of the top 5 teams in history

I don't think that's the normal definition. As I understand it, ceiling raising is the degree to which you elevate an already good team's ability to win a championship. The definition is valid for 1st options through top reserves; you don't necessarily have to be a 2nd option or 2nd best player. Floor raising is the degree to which you increase the wins of a relatively low talent team.

[OhayoKD]

...
Cieling Raising is about whether you have to be a second banana to fit better teams...not whether you play on one of the top 5 teams in history

I don't think that's the normal definition. As I understand it, ceiling raising is the degree to which you elevate an already good team's ability to win a championship. The definition is valid for 1st options through top reserves; you don't necessarily have to be a 2nd option or 2nd best player. Floor raising is the degree to which you increase the wins of a relatively low talent team.

I think you're misunderstanding me here. A player who can, all else being equal, outputs first banana impact on a better team is likely going to improve a "good team" more than a player who outputs second banana impact on that better team.

There is something to be said about willing to be a reserve or whatever, but in terms of actually elevating good teams, if you become a role palyer on elite teams, you are not raising the ceiling as much as someone who is still providing historically great lift, even if the team you are a role player on happens to be really great.

[penbeast0]

Assuming you're good at it. I still think Iverson is someone who makes bad teams better and good teams worse.

[Djoker]

VOTING POST

POY

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - 1st Team All-NBA, 2nd Team All-Defense. MVP. Just a ridiculous season start to finish, one of the greatest RS ever followed by a very strong PS putting up big numbers against three elite defensive centers.

The 1971 Bucks are on a very short list of greatest teams of all time. In the RS, highest SRS ever with +7.1 rORtg and -3.6 DRtg and in the PS, +4.5 rORtg and -9.5 rDRtg. Best offense and best defense which is pretty damn insane.

As for Kareem, he led the charge on both ends of the court but let's look at his offensive numbers.

RS: 31.7/16.0/3.3 on 60.6 %TS (+10.6 rTS)

Insane regular season quite simply put. Along with 1971-72 maybe the two greatest RS campaigns ever considering they were also authored on historic teams.

WCSF vs. Warriors: 27.8/15.6/0.6 on 52.8 %TS (+5.4 rTS)

Kareem had the most dominant series anyone ever had against prime Nate and it's not even close. Nate averaged 17.6/10.2/3.0 on 41.6 %TS (-5.5 rTS). Bucks win by 11, win by 14, win by 12, lose by 2, win by 50!

WCF vs. Lakers: 25.0/17.2/4.2 on 51.0 %TS (+2.5 rTS)

With West (and Baylor) out injured, the Bucks completely dominated the outgunned Lakers. However, Wilt kind of held his own against Kareem with averages of 22.0/18.8/2.0 on 48.9 %TS (+1.8 rTS). Wilt will probably make my ballot for an admirable performance. Bucks win by 21, win by 18, lose by 11, win by 23, win by 18!

Finals vs. Bullets: 27.0/18.5/2.8 on 63.4 %TS (+13.9 rTS)

The undersized Unseld just wasn't equipped to handle Kareem. He was strong but Kareem destroyed him. Second half of Game 4 is available on YouTube (I think only footage from the entire PS run) and the Bucks ran the Bullets out of the building in Baltimore. Unseld averaged 15.0/19.0/5.3 on 42.3 %TS (-4.8 rTS). Bucks win by 10, win by 19, win by 8, win by 12.

Kareem is the obvious #1. His PS numbers don't actually jump out of the page so his 1970-71 campaign is probably a bit underrated. Of course it's fairly obvious why the scoring isn't THAT insane when you realize he faced Thurmond, Wilt and Unseld in the three series and that his team completely dominated every single series so there was hardly any need to ride Kareem hard. They went 12-2 in the playoffs with eleven of those wins by double digits. And their two losses happened up 3-0 and 2-0 in those respective series.

2. Walt Frazier - 1st Team All-NBA and 1st Team All-Defense. Fantastic all-around player and this season became the best player on the Knicks as Reed started succumbing to injuries. Averaged 21.7/6.8/6.7 on 55.6 %TS (+5.6 rTS) in the RS then 22.6/5.8/4.5 on 57.2 %TS (+7.5 rTS) in the PS. His team lost a hard-fought 7-game series against the Bullets but Frazier was likely the best player in that series. His defense and minuted played give him a total impact over Oscar by a hair IMO although I can see the order switched.

3. Oscar Robertson - 2nd Team All-NBA. Arrival coincided with the Bucks improving from a good team to maybe the greatest team ever. Offense went from +3.1 rORtg to +6.7 rORtg. Oscar, while older, still brought together a great combination of scoring and playmaking. Averaged 19.4/5.7/8.2 on 56.3 %TS (+6.3 rTS) in the RS then 18.3/5.0/8.9 on 53.3 %TS (+4.8 rTS) in the PS. He orchestrated the Bucks' offense while bringing invaluable veteran leadership to the young Bucks team. Oscar also had his finest defensive campaign becoming a factor on that end of the floor.

4. John Havlicek - 1st Team All-NBA and 2nd Team All-Defense. Rookie Dave Cowens came on and although the Celtics didn't make the playoffs because they were 3rd in their division, they had the 2nd best SRS in the Eastern Conference and a 44-38 record. Push comes to shove, I think Hondo gets the nod over everyone else remaining just for the all-around greatness. Averaged 28.9/9.7/7.5 on 51.3 %TS (+1.3 rTS).

5. Wilt Chamberlain - It came down to Wilt and Unseld for the last spot and I went with Wilt. I just think his impact on defense is greater as he can defend the paint and besides, he had a stronger series vs. Kareem averaging 22.0/18.8/2.0 on 48.9 %TS (+1.8 rTS) as they both lost to the juggernaut Bucks.

HM: Wes Unseld

OPOY

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - Historically efficient scoring and good playmaking for a big man.

2. Oscar Robertson - Great combo of scoring and playmaking. Bucks became an elite offense with his arrival.

3. Jerry West - Strong 26.9/4.6/9.5 on 57.1 %TS (+7.1 rTS). Missed the PS. If healthy, good case for #1.

DPOY

1. Nate Thurmond - Led a better defense than Wilt.

2. Wilt Chamberlain

3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - Despite anchoring a really strong defense, I don't think he's on the level of the two men in front of him.

[AEnigma]

Offensive Player of the Year

1. Oscar Robertson
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Walt Frazier

Expect Kareem to win this, and he is reasonably deserving, but I still believe playmaking is generally more valuable than individual scoring is on quality teams. Honourable mentions to Archie Clark, Earl Monroe, and I suppose Dave Bing.

Defensive Player of the Year

1. Nate Thurmond
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Very competitive year, but given equal support, I think Thurmond and Wilt are the most individually influential defensive players, and then Kareem earns third as the anchor for a title-winning #1(~) defence (on top of being a reasonable pick on his own merits).

Player of the Year

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Oscar Robertson
4. Walt Frazier
5. Zelmo Beaty

Kareem an unquestionable #1. Wilt earns second primarily for beating a 5.5 SRS team without Jerry West, and for having a better individual series against the Bucks than he will next year where I expect at least a .500 voting award share from this collective. Knew those two from the start. When the games matter, they are the two most impactful players.

Beaty I will include because he won the ABA title and I think should have been the ABA MVP. As a player, he is more in that Unseld range for me as a fringe top ten talent, but that is good enough to merit recognition with a respectable cross-league accomplishment. However, I think his time in the NBA does signal lesser status than at least Frazier and Oscar (as well as Thurmond and Cunningham, but both were first round exits).

So then the debate was between Oscar and Frazier, and not only did Oscar fare much better against the Bullets (and contribute more to disrupting Earl Monroe), I also think he was better in the regular season per minute, and Frazier’s additional 261 minutes do not excuse Oscar’s superior accomplishments in the postseason.

[Dutchball97]

Player of the Year
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - The clear best player on one of the best teams of all-time. They had both the best offense and defense in the regular season and in the post-season that gap only grew. His offense isn't as dominant in the regular season as the post-season but he faced Thurmond, Wilt and Unseld so that context should be taken into account as well. I'm not sure I'd call this the best peak of all time but it's without a doubt a contender and that in a year where the competition isn't particularly strong should easily give him a unanimous win here.

2. Walt Frazier - Second best player in the regular season in my opinion, who also had a strong performance in the play-offs. While it was definitely a discussion who the best player on the Knicks was the last couple seasons, that is no longer the case with Frazier stepping up where Reed starts his decline.

3. Oscar Robertson - Having someone who can't even be considered a 1B this high seems odd but there isn't much to choose from this time around. West doesn't play the post-season, Reed faces an early decline, Wilt doesn't really impress, Havlicek doesn't make the play-offs, Unseld doesn't look like a top 5 player despite making the finals, etc. Oscar took a step back on offense but also upped his engagement on defense to at least moderate success. It should be noted that while Kareem was definitely the primary engine for the team on both sides of the floor, there seem to be pretty clear signals adding Oscar also provided a substantial amount of the lift the Bucks see this season.

4. Zelmo Beaty - Best player in the ABA by a decent margin. Honorable mention on that front to Daniels and Issel as well but Beaty is the only one of them I think had a strong enough season to make my ballot with the ABA still being quite a bit weaker than the NBA at the moment.

5. Billy Cunningham - Made All-NBA 1st team and stepped up even more in the play-offs. Even though the 76ers stay in the post-season was short, it was enough for me to put Cunningham ahead of guys who disappointed in the play-offs or missed it entirely.

Offensive Player of the Year
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Jerry West
3. Billy Cunningham

Kareem being first here shouldn't need too much explanation really. West was a pretty clear 2nd best offensive player in the regular season and since nobody else capitalized with big offensive performances in the play-offs and my more lenient stance for missing the post-season for the OPOY and DPOY awards, West stays ahead of a competitive field coming up next. Beaty and Love are big scorers on consistently good offenses but had very little in the way of playmaking. Frazier had more success on the defensive end, while Oscar's scoring going down and a lot of his assists going to Kareem don't sweep me off my feet either. Honorable mention to Havlicek as well but Cunninham's post-season just lifts him ahead in my eyes.

Defensive Player of the Year
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Dave DeBusschere
3. Wes Unseld

Kareem was already the best defender in the regular season but seems to have gotten even better in the post-season. DeBusschere played the most important role in keeping the Knicks defense right there with the Bucks in the regular season but while the Knicks still had the 2nd best defense in the post-season, they weren't on the same level as the Bucks. Unseld beats out Wilt and Thurmond despite a lackluster finals performance.

[AEnigma]

3 - Mel Daniels. I honestly sort of forgot the ABA before the guy above me brought up Zeemo and I feel like the ABA should get a rep even if its a weak league. Mel scored lots and rebounded lots and went 7 against the team to beat. Maybe hes the best player?

I do not think he has a strong argument against the guy who actually won the title and was recognised as that winning team’s top postseason performer (which Mel never was in any of his three wins). Mel also did not “score lots”. Most of this description applies at least as well to Dan Issel, and the actual best player in the league was likely Rick Barry.

[falcolombardi]

Player of the Year
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - The clear best player on one of the best teams of all-time. They had both the best offense and defense in the regular season and in the post-season that gap only grew. His offense isn't as dominant in the regular season as the post-season but he faced Thurmond, Wilt and Unseld so that context should be taken into account as well. I'm not sure I'd call this the best peak of all time but it's without a doubt a contender and that in a year where the competition isn't particularly strong should easily give him a unanimous win here.

2. Walt Frazier - Second best player in the regular season in my opinion, who also had a strong performance in the play-offs. While it was definitely a discussion who the best player on the Knicks was the last couple seasons, that is no longer the case with Frazier stepping up where Reed starts his decline.

3. Oscar Robertson - Having someone who can't even be considered a 1B this high seems odd but there isn't much to choose from this time around. West doesn't play the post-season, Reed faces an early decline, Wilt doesn't really impress, Havlicek doesn't make the play-offs, Unseld doesn't look like a top 5 player despite making the finals, etc. Oscar took a step back on offense but also upped his engagement on defense to at least moderate success. It should be noted that while Kareem was definitely the primary engine for the team on both sides of the floor, there seem to be pretty clear signals adding Oscar also provided a substantial amount of the lift the Bucks see this season.

4. Zelmo Beaty - Best player in the ABA by a decent margin. Honorable mention on that front to Daniels and Issel as well but Beaty is the only one of them I think had a strong enough season to make my ballot with the ABA still being quite a bit weaker than the NBA at the moment.

5. Billy Cunningham - Made All-NBA 1st team and stepped up even more in the play-offs. Even though the 76ers stay in the post-season was short, it was enough for me to put Cunningham ahead of guys who disappointed in the play-offs or missed it entirely.

Offensive Player of the Year
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Jerry West
3. Billy Cunningham

Kareem being first here shouldn't need too much explanation really. West was a pretty clear 2nd best offensive player in the regular season and since nobody else capitalized with big offensive performances in the play-offs and my more lenient stance for missing the post-season for the OPOY and DPOY awards, West stays ahead of a competitive field coming up next. Beaty and Love are big scorers on consistently good offenses but had very little in the way of playmaking. Frazier had more success on the defensive end, while Oscar's scoring going down and a lot of his assists going to Kareem don't sweep me off my feet either. Honorable mention to Havlicek as well but Cunninham's post-season just lifts him ahead in my eyes.

Defensive Player of the Year
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Dave DeBusschere
3. Wes Unseld

Kareem was already the best defender in the regular season but seems to have gotten even better in the post-season. DeBusschere played the most important role in keeping the Knicks defense right there with the Bucks in the regular season but while the Knicks still had the 2nd best defense in the post-season, they weren't on the same level as the Bucks. Unseld beats out Wilt and Thurmond despite a lackluster finals performance.

Dave debushere over wilt defensively just seems wrong, even unseld too

I doubt wilt made a gigantic leap fron 71 to 72 where his defense led lakers to a historic title run

[Dutchball97]

Dave debushere over wilt defensively just seems wrong, even unseld too

I doubt wilt made a gigantic leap fron 71 to 72 where his defense led lakers to a historic title run

Knicks were a close 2nd best defense in the regular season, while the Lakers were just average. Keep in mind this is also with Reed on the decline. Wilt didn't lead the Lakers to a good post-season defense either.

Wilt being better in prior or future seasons has no bearing on how he performed this season, the very thing we should be judging these players on.

[Owly]

Dave debushere over wilt defensively just seems wrong, even unseld too

I doubt wilt made a gigantic leap fron 71 to 72 where his defense led lakers to a historic title run

Knicks were a close 2nd best defense in the regular season, while the Lakers were just average. Keep in mind this is also with Reed on the decline. Wilt didn't lead the Lakers to a good post-season defense either.

Wilt being better in prior or future seasons has no bearing on how he performed this season, the very thing we should be judging these players on.

We're dealing with noisy tools here but I'm broadly inclined to agree and question the logic on Wilt.

Wilt's underlying defensive potential might not took a substantial leap.

But his buy-in might.
He might be more motivated.
He might be better coached. LA does make a coaching change.
He is someone whose impact seems ... granting uncertainty in this area ... to have fluctuated.

Meanwhile DD isn't a substantially note-worthily productive player (fairly average in this regard) but seems (iirc) to have an impact signal and a reputation for defense.

It could "seem" wrong but apart from where ones priors are calibrated (and ... there's a possibility they're too low on DeBusschere) I'm not sure that that provides much general guidance that it is wrong.

[penbeast0]

3 - Mel Daniels. I honestly sort of forgot the ABA before the guy above me brought up Zeemo and I feel like the ABA should get a rep even if its a weak league. Mel scored lots and rebounded lots and went 7 against the team to beat. Maybe hes the best player?

I do not think he has a strong argument against the guy who actually won the title and was recognised as that winning team’s top postseason performer (which Mel never was in any of his three wins). Mel also did not “score lots”. Most of this description applies at least as well to Dan Issel, and the actual best player in the league was likely Rick Barry.

Mel did win MVP and was voted ahead of Zelmo for 1st team All-ABA this year so closer than you make it seem. He scored 21.0 with 18.0 rebounds in the regular season and 21.4/19.1 in the playoffs so you can't say he didn't play well there.

Z was 22.9/15.7 in the RS and 23.2/14.6 beating Indiana 4-3 in the WCF on the way to the title and I voted him slightly above Mel Daniels this year for the way his team rallied around him but it was very close, not a walkover.

Oh, and Mel was clearly the team's top postseason performer scoring less than half a point less per game than Roger Brown while leading the league in rebounding both RS and PS plus anchoring the Pacers defense which you can't say about Brown or Keller, the other two top playoff scorers on the team.

[AEnigma]

Dave debushere over wilt defensively just seems wrong, even unseld too

I doubt wilt made a gigantic leap fron 71 to 72 where his defense led lakers to a historic title run

Knicks were a close 2nd best defense in the regular season, while the Lakers were just average. Keep in mind this is also with Reed on the decline. Wilt didn't lead the Lakers to a good post-season defense either.

Wilt being better in prior or future seasons has no bearing on how he performed this season, the very thing we should be judging these players on.

So why do the Knicks get over two points worse on defence in 1972?

The Knicks and Bullets had substantially better defensive rosters than the Lakers and Warriors did. Coldly looking at defensive ranks like that will tell you Porzingis is a better defender than Anthony Davis is.

[AEnigma]

3 - Mel Daniels. I honestly sort of forgot the ABA before the guy above me brought up Zeemo and I feel like the ABA should get a rep even if its a weak league. Mel scored lots and rebounded lots and went 7 against the team to beat. Maybe hes the best player?

I do not think he has a strong argument against the guy who actually won the title and was recognised as that winning team’s top postseason performer (which Mel never was in any of his three wins). Mel also did not “score lots”. Most of this description applies at least as well to Dan Issel, and the actual best player in the league was likely Rick Barry.

Mel did win MVP and was voted ahead of Zelmo for 1st team All-ABA this year so closer than you make it seem.

Okay, no one said anything about MVP voting.

He scored 21.0 with 18.0 rebounds in the regular season and 21.4/19.1 in the playoffs so you can't say he didn't play well there.

No one said he did not maintain his play into the postseason, which is what that box comparison suggests.

Z was 22.9/15.7 in the RS and 23.2/14.6 beating Indiana 4-3 in the WCF on the way to the title and I voted him slightly above Mel Daniels this year for the way his team rallied around him but it was very close, not a walkover.

No one said walkover.

Oh, and Mel was clearly the team's top postseason performer scoring less than half a point less per game than Roger Brown while leading the league in rebounding both RS and PS plus anchoring the Pacers defense which you can't say about Brown or Keller, the other two top playoff scorers on the team.

First, no one said anything about whether he was the best postseason player for the Pacers in 1971.

Second, it is an open question how Mel’s defence weighed against both Brown’s and Keller’s superior playmaking and spacing, and the Pacers’ elite offence was what made them a special team that year.

Third, Mel’s postseason averages are skewed toward his series against Memphis. His scoring, rebounding, and minutes all dropped against the Stars, which is the series that really mattered.

Fourth, when discussing defensive anchors, I think Beaty looks a lot better turning what had been a bottom four defence before Beaty into a top two defence which was better than the Pacers’. This is more easily flipped next year, where the Stars are the #1 offence and the Pacers are the #2 defence, but at that point Mel is declining faster than Beaty is.

The cleanest argument for Mel is rebounding, but if that were ILikeShaiFan’s rationale, then he would not be excluding Wilt.