wed@drutx.UUCP (DeibertWE) (03/03/86)
Concerning possible MVP picks, Pete Williamson writes: > My second vote would be for the NBA's best alltime player: Kareem. I don't mean to pick on Pete because I've read the same sort of statement in many different articles in the past. And, of course, the best all time player is a matter of opinion. But wasn't it Bill Russell who led his team (as a player) to 11 championships in 13 years? Wasn't it Wilt Chamberlain who scored 100 points in a single game and AVERAGED OVER 50 POINTS A GAME for an entire season? I agree that Kareem should be considered amongst the best but I don't think he was a bit better than those mentioned above. William D. ps - Not very often does anybody score 50 points in a game anymore. Wilt AVERAGED 50 a game for a season. I find that phenomenal even today.
afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis) (03/04/86)
In article <127@drutx.UUCP>, wed@drutx.UUCP (DeibertWE) writes: > Concerning possible MVP picks, Pete Williamson writes: > > > My second vote would be for the NBA's best alltime player: Kareem. > > I don't mean to pick on Pete because I've read the same sort of statement > in many different articles in the past. And, of course, the best all time > player is a matter of opinion. But wasn't it Bill Russell who led his > team (as a player) to 11 championships in 13 years? Wasn't it Wilt > Chamberlain who scored 100 points in a single game and AVERAGED OVER > 50 POINTS A GAME for an entire season? I agree that Kareem should > be considered amongst the best but I don't think he was a bit better > than those mentioned above. > > William D. > > ps - Not very often does anybody score 50 points in a game anymore. > Wilt AVERAGED 50 a game for a season. I find that phenomenal > even today. Wilt and Russell were men amongst boys. Besides these two, there just weren't very many good centers in the league, with the exception of an occasional Nate Thurmond (whom Wilt in his autobiography said gave him more trouble than Russell). This fact does nothing to undercut Wilt's remarkable 50 ppg year, but remember that the top scorers of those days were all scoring more than the top scorers are today. I thought Maravich scored in the mid to high 30's in the early 70's, and Elgin Baylor was scoring around 40 ppg while Wilt was dominating the league. As far as Russell is concerned, I don't think he was on Wilt or Kareem's level as an individual. The Celtics had some of the best players of their time, as well as (admittedly) the best coach in NBA history. The fact that they won 11 out of 13 championships (which would be quite impossible today) shows that the rest of the league was not nearly up to today's standards. Russell would be a great rebounder and defensive player in any era, but he wasn't a good offensive player then, and he wouldn't be able to score as well as that now. Think about this, though: If some opposing center managed to "hold" Wilt to say, 30 pt. and 17 rebounds, Wilt would have needed *70* pt. and *33* rebounds the next night out to maintain the averages he attained in 1961-62. I think that, even weighing in the quality of competition factor, my choice for greatest player of all time has got to be Wilt, by a nose. Michael Lewis @ Purdue University
fredrickson@celica.DEC (03/05/86)
Some thoughts on the NBA's MVP, which I believe is becoming as much an annual lock for Larry Bird as the NHL's is for Wayne Gretzky. This is why I was so surprised to see the recent speculation in this newsgroup. I found the lack of respect for Bird appalling, but I know there are many Celtic haters out there. The criteria for choosing MVPs has always been controversial. The idea of singlehandedly causing a team's improvement is very credible, but it penalizes a great player for being on a great team. Leading a team to a championship is a nice idea, but it penalizes great players who are on lousy teams. Statistics can be convenient, but we all know they can lie. Intangibles like leadership and intensity and durability should count for something, shouldn't they? The answer, of course, is to mix all of these considerations. Looking back through the MVP selections in the major sports over the years, most MVPs are from top teams. When there is a premium placed on winning, then leading a team to a title is an important criterion for an MVP. My favorite example is Zoilo Versailles of the '66 Twins. He was a .260 or .270-hitting shortstop but his team won the flag and he was the AL MVP. The year Ted Williams hit .406 (1941), Joe DiMaggio was the MVP for two reasons: his 56-game hitting streak and the Yankees' pennant. I believe DiMag also beat out Williams for MVP in one of Ted's triple crown years, again because the Yanks won it (the writers supposedly hated Williams as well). Isn't it hard to imagine a triple-crown winner not being MVP? How about asking the question, "How many fewer wins would the team have without this guy?" Again, it penalizes the guys on deep teams, but I still believe Bird would fare well under this theory. I don't care how many great players the Celtics have, they'd be a good 10-15 games lower in the standings without Bird. In his rookie year (when he wasn't nearly as good as he is now), Bird joined a team that had been terrible for 2-3 years and they went 61-21, the best regular-season record in the league. The only other new guy of significance on that team (1979-80) was 6th-man M.L. Carr. A year later they added McHale and Parish, then DJ and so on, so Bird's impact can now be argued because of these other outstanding players. As for Dominique Wilkins, he is certainly a great player who is largely responsible for his team's rebirth. But an MVP? No way. His defense is worse than Bird's and he can't pass to save his life. People love to pick on Bird's D. First of all, he is one of the greatest defensive-rebounding forwards ever, and if that doesn't count towards being a good defensive player, I don't know what does. Secondly, being born a slow-footed white guy who can't jump does limit you in certain facets of basketball, including one-on-one defense away from the basket. And thirdly, how many guys in NBA history who did everything at the offensive end could ever put the energy into guarding the opponent with 100% fervor? At least Bird works at defense, which is far more than you can ever say about Mr. Jabbar (a 7-foot-2 center who averages 5 rebounds as MVP? Ha!). The biggest reason the Celts try to avoid having Bird guard the opponent's best forward is fatigue, not ability. They want him fresh at the other end. The suggestion of Isiah Thomas as MVP is another joke. Like Wilkins, he is a great talent who tries to do too much himself. Unlike Wilkins, though, Isiah has quite a few able teammates. I realize his assist totals are proof that he gives the ball up and creates opportunities for others, but when you handle the ball 70% of the time on every possession, you're going to get some assists. He looked like a fool down the stretch Sunday in Boston, driving the lane umpteen times when it just wasn't there and getting stuffed or stripped on several occasions when Tripucka or Laimbeer were standing 12 feet from the basket wide open. Thomas is a charismatic, exciting, talented player who is certainly among the four best point guards in the game. But an MVP? No way. And please don't tell me about the Pistons' recent 10-game winning streak, achieved against a list of miserable opponents. The Detroit players admitted they played better Sunday than in any game during the streak, and they lost by 20! As for Akeem, has anyone noticed the Rockets' record since he got hurt? I believe Moses Malone is the closest thing to an MVP after Bird. And despite Jabbar's defensive shortcomings, he is still the glue that holds the flaky Lakers together, not Magic. No one is even close to Bird. If you want to use statistics, he is in the top 15 in six of eight individual categories. Olajuwon, Thomas and Barkley each appear in four categories; Jabbar, Nance and Sampson three. If you want to use intangibles -- leadership, intensity, etc. -- Bird is an even clearer choice. It's no coincidence that the careers of Parish, DJ and Walton were all reborn after they got to Boston. So my MVP ballot goes like this: 1. Bird 2. Malone 3. Jabbar 4. Olajuwon 5. Wilkins
dashman@rti-sel.UUCP (03/06/86)
I absolutely agree that Bird is head and shoulders above anyone else in terms of the MVP this year. It is arguable that every year since he joined the Celtics the same was true. I say this as a dyed-in-wool N.Y. Knick fan (and beleive me, I've done a lot of dying with them recently) who has no love for the men in green. The usual rap on his defense is myopic. It only attends to his lack of quick feet (Tiny Archibald he ain't), but how many passes does he slap away or intercept?.....and how many times have you seen him strip an unsuspecting opponent being guarded by another Celt?....and he is an astounding rebounder on the order of a DeBusschere or a Silas (not all guys who can't jump are white) from a previous era. A lot of players have been arrogant, but only a few have been consistently able to live up to it (Oscar, West, Kareem, Wilt, Russell come immediately to mind). Bird is clearly in this elite group of the very best we have ever seen. (Bill Walton might have gotten there had his feet taken him further, and Bernard King, Ralph Sampson and Magic Johnson still might get there). I agree with your general comments about Kareem's rebounding, but here again it is not a statistic that represents much about this man's dominance in his time. We're talking about arguably the best player ever....sure you'd like 15 boards a game, but there is so much to him that I'm willing to overlook his lower average, i.e. scoring, shot-blocking, intimidation, presence, leadership, crunch-time play. You did not include Magic in your group of MVPs. I will never forget the game he played at center as a rookie in the championship, when Kareem was hurt. I mean, a point guard at center.....He had the bad? fortune of coming to a team with a legend in the middle, and I think this has suppressed much of his capacity to dominate (it has done the same to James Worthy). He has the qualities that the other true greats have. I am not one of those who thinks the Lakers will fall apart when Kareem retires.....I think Magic and James will emerge from their shells. (Now if Ralph really does go free agent.... anyone notice how awesome he's been without having to play around Akeem..... Houston should have traded one or the other rather than force them to play together.) But I digress. Magic has extended Kareem's career, if only because the great one loves ending his NBA days with a truly great guard, just as he began it in Milwaukee (Oscar). And Magic is young....we're going to have the pleasure of his company for a long time to come. Maybe the Knicks will win the lottery again....Johnny Dawkins? Len Bias? Drool.
wed@drutx.UUCP (DeibertWE) (03/06/86)
My (biased) vote for MVP is marked, Alex (no ink) English. Without him the Nuggets become a last place team. Alex is just too consistently smooth to be looked upon as a super star. William D.
plw@panda.UUCP (Pete Williamson) (03/06/86)
>> player is a matter of opinion. But wasn't it Bill Russell who led his >> team (as a player) to 11 championships in 13 years? Wasn't it Wilt >> Chamberlain who scored 100 points in a single game and AVERAGED OVER >> 50 POINTS A GAME for an entire season? I agree that Kareem should >> be considered amongst the best but I don't think he was a bit better >> than those mentioned above. > Wilt and Russell were men amongst boys. Besides these two, there just >weren't very many good centers in the league ... > As far as Russell is concerned, I don't think he was on Wilt or Kareem's >level as an individual. > I think that, even weighing in the quality of competition factor, my >choice for greatest player of all time has got to be Wilt, by a nose. Clearly, we are all talking about the best three centers of all time. If you conducted a poll, these three would be in a class by themselves for NBA Centers. Russell is my favorite cuz he was GREEN. He did indeed bring home 11 out of 13 world championships. Note that from 1957 to 1966 the Celtics won the World Championship EVERY YEAR except 1958. In 1958, Bill Russell had a broken leg. When you think of defense and rebounding, you think of BILL RUSSELL. There is no question that Wilt was the greatest offensive player ever. Can you imagine scoring 100 points in a single game or averaging 50 points per game for a season! And he couldn't shoot foul shots to save his life!! But I still think Kareem is the very best. Mainly because the NBA has radically changed over the last 15 years. The players are much better. The schedules are much tougher. The seasons are much longer. Kareem has competed in THIS NBA and accomplished remarkable things. I honestly do not believe that Bill or Wilt would have been as good as they were had they played during Kareem's time. But then again, who knows. Again, I sure wished Kareem had played his career in Beantown, or at the very least, in the Atlantic Division. sigh. -- Pete Williamson "By hook or by crook, we will !!" ... #2