Bill Simmons' erroneous claim that only five people voted on FMVP led me down a rabbit hole: how many people did vote each year? We know it's 11 now and has been since at least 2015, after which all votes have been made public as follows:

2026 Brunson 11-0

2025 SGA 11-0

2024 Brown 7, Tatum 4

2023 Jokic 11-0

2022 Curry 11-0

2021 Giannis 11-0

2020 LeBron 11-0

2019 Kawhi 10, FVV 1

2018 KD 7, Curry 4

2017 KD 11-0

2016 LeBron 11-0

2015 Iguodala 7, LeBron 4

But what about before that? Previously I'd found very little information. Now, thanks to the good folks at NBAstats.net, here's full-ish data back to 1978:

2014 Kawhi 10, ??? 1

2013 Lebron 11-0

2012 LeBron 9-0

2011 Dirk 9-0

2010 Kobe 7, Gasol 2

2009 Kobe 9-0

2008 Pierce 9-0

2007 Parker 9, Duncan 1

2006 Wade (unanimous)

2005 Duncan 6, Manu 4

2004 Billups (unanimous)

2003 Duncan (unanimous)

2002 Shaq (unanimous)

2001 Shaq (unanimous)

2000 Shaq (unanimous)

1999 Duncan (unanimous)

1998 MJ 11-0

1997 MJ (unanimous)

1996 MJ 6, Kemp 3, Rodman 2

1995 Hakeem (unanimous)

1994 Hakeem (unanimous)

1993 MJ 11-0

1992 MJ 11-0

1991 MJ 11-0

1990 Isiah 11-0

1989 Dumars 11-0

1988 Worthy 7, Magic 4

1987 Magic (unanimous)

1986 Bird 9, McHale 2

1985 Kareem 13-0

1984 Bird 11-0

1983 Moses (unanimous)

1982 Magic 5, McAdoo 3, Nixon 1

1981 Maxwell 6, Bird 1

1980 Magic 4, Kareem 3

1979 DJ 4, Sikma 3

1978 Unseld 3, Hayes 2

From this we can also construct FMVP shares (analogous to MVP shares), again updating my previous attempt:

Player	Count	Share
Michael Jordan	6	5.55
LeBron James	4	4.36
Shaquille O'Neal	3	3.00
Tim Duncan	3	2.70
Magic Johnson	3	2.49
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar	2	2.43
Hakeem Olajuwon	2	2.00
Willis Reed	2	2.00
Larry Bird	2	1.96
Kawhi Leonard	2	1.82
Kobe Bryant	2	1.78
Kevin Durant	2	1.64
Stephen Curry	1	1.36
Bill Walton	1	1.00
Chauncey Billups	1	1.00
Dirk Nowitzki	1	1.00
Dwyane Wade	1	1.00
Giannis Antetokounmpo	1	1.00
Isiah Thomas	1	1.00
Jalen Brunson	1	1.00
Jerry West	1	1.00
Jo Jo White	1	1.00
Joe Dumars	1	1.00
John Havlicek	1	1.00
Moses Malone	1	1.00
Nikola Jokić	1	1.00
Paul Pierce	1	1.00
Rick Barry	1	1.00
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander	1	1.00
Wilt Chamberlain	1	1.00
Tony Parker	1	0.90
Cedric Maxwell	1	0.86
Andre Iguodala	1	0.64
James Worthy	1	0.64
Jaylen Brown	1	0.64
Wes Unseld	1	0.60
Dennis Johnson	1	0.57
Jack Sikma	0	0.43
Elvin Hayes	0	0.40
Manu Ginóbili	0	0.40
Jayson Tatum	0	0.36
Bob McAdoo	0	0.33
Shawn Kemp	0	0.27
Pau Gasol	0	0.22
Dennis Rodman	0	0.18
Kevin McHale	0	0.18
Norm Nixon	0	0.11
Fred VanVleet	0	0.09

[I've assumed 1969-77 were unanimous until proven otherwise]

Now that a couple of months have passed (and in fact we're close to the start of next season) we can assess claims such as these coolly and dispassionately, without being prisoners of the moment.

How did this arise?

The Knicks beat their playoff opponents by an average of 14.9ppg, said to be the highest in history. Actually this isn't quite true. Mikan's 1956 Lakers lost a three-game first-round series two games to one, sandwiching two one-point losses around a 58-point win, for an average of +18.7 net. Since it doesn't mean a thing without the ring, henceforth we'll only look at champions, to prevent such outliers.

Is this anything?

Since the next four teams are the 1971 Bucks (+14.5), 2017 Warriors (+13.5), 2001 Lakers (+12.8) and 1991 Bulls (+11.7), I'd say this is a pretty good list to be on top of. Notably, the Knicks remain ahead even if you remove each team's biggest win, with their 51-point win over the Hawks cancelled out by the Bucks beating the Warriors by 50 and the Lakers beating the Spurs by 36. Adjusting for pace shuffles the order a bit, but the Knicks remain first (+15.5 net rating) followed by the Lakers, Warriors, Bucks, Bulls (+13.7, +13.5, +13.4 and +13.2 respectively).

Is this everything?

Absolutely not. In fact we don't have to scroll down too far to remember the 2024 Celtics beating the pants off some very mediocre opponents. Strength of schedule matters. Fortunately, we have a Simple Rating System (SRS) for that, and very helpfully, CraftedNBA have calculated a playoff-specific version. Here at last the Knicks (+19.17) cede the crown, by the barest of margins, to the those same Lakers (+19.18). Warriors (+16.9) stay steady in 3rd, and we have some new contenders: the 1996 Bulls (+16.6) edge their 1991 cousins (+15.7), and the Cavs (+14.9) overtake the Bucks (+14.5).

Can we go deeper?

Yes. Again citing the Celtics, the main problem with SRS is that it assumes every opponent is their regular season selves, without factoring in trades, injuries or shortened playoff rotations. This is a problem I've been working on for a number of years, using Box Plus-Minus (BPM) as a proxy. This model even predicted the Knicks would beat the Spurs. Much like when 538 picked Raptors over Warriors, I didn't quite believe what the numbers were telling me. But updating that chart from a couple of years ago gives the following top 6:

year	team	OFF	DEF	TOT
1996	CHI	9.6	10.0	19.6
2017	GSW	10.7	6.6	17.2
2026	NYK	7.0	9.9	17.0
2025	OKC	5.0	11.6	16.9
1991	CHI	10.9	5.7	16.6
2001	LAL	11.2	5.2	16.3

Does winning matter?

The odd one out in that group is not New York but OKC, who of course got pushed to seven games twice. While winning by big margins might be a better predictor of long-term success, and there's an element of luck in close games, ultimately we're judged on results, which is why I'd push the Lakers and Warriors higher than the raw numbers show (and there's even an outside case for the 1983 Sixers, although the numbers are murkier). Still, 16-3 is really damn good.

Does the regular season matter?

Yes and no. Obviously it shouldn't affect the impressiveness of the run itself, but people want to know if it's replicable, which is why they've been so quick to tear down the non-repeat champs of this parity era. The Knicks won the fewest games of any of the teams we've looked at, and only the Lakers are vaguely close, who obviously backed it up. To be continued...

Conclusion

Whichever way you slice the numbers, the Knicks are in the top tier of champions, ever. Although I wouldn't personally have them number one, I certainly don't blame their fans for doing so, especially when you take into account unquantifiable factors such as comebacks.